newolder wrote:Wortfish, From where did you extract that "3 million years old" figure?

Homo naledi, the mosaic of archaic and modern human, whose discovery two years ago was published in the journal Elife was touted to be around 3 million years old.

Shrunk wrote:
Proportionately, no, the creationists were still way off. Do the math, 250,000/6000 vs 3 million/250,000.

Wortfish wrote:What bugs me is Dawkins' claim that every species must produce offspring of the same species: https://richarddawkins.net/2015/03/darw ... w-species/

The trouble is that at what point did my erectus ancestors become sapiens descendants if they could only produce an erectus?

Wortfish wrote:

Shrunk wrote:
Proportionately, no, the creationists were still way off. Do the math, 250,000/6000 vs 3 million/250,000.

Not all creationists believe the earth is 6,000 years old. I met one who thought it is 2.5 million years old.

Wortfish wrote:What bugs me is Dawkins' claim that every species must produce offspring of the same species: https://richarddawkins.net/2015/03/darw ... w-species/

The trouble is that at what point did my erectus ancestors become sapiens descendants if they could only produce an erectus?

Shrunk wrote:

Wortfish wrote:
So you guys think the earth is somewhere between 6000 and 2.5 million years old. Amazing scientific rigour.

Shrunk wrote:

Wortfish wrote:What bugs me is Dawkins' claim that every species must produce offspring of the same species: https://richarddawkins.net/2015/03/darw ... w-species/

The trouble is that at what point did my erectus ancestors become sapiens descendants if they could only produce an erectus?

Fenrir wrote:
Precisely where in this image does red become blue?

kiore wrote:

Shrunk wrote:

Wortfish wrote:What bugs me is Dawkins' claim that every species must produce offspring of the same species: https://richarddawkins.net/2015/03/darw ... w-species/

The trouble is that at what point did my erectus ancestors become sapiens descendants if they could only produce an erectus?

A most quotable quote, it shall not fade away.

Wortfish wrote:

Shrunk wrote:

Wortfish wrote:
So you guys think the earth is somewhere between 6000 and 2.5 million years old. Amazing scientific rigour.

Creationists are a broad church. There are some who think the earth is 4.6 billion years old. There are even some creatonists, like Mike Behe. who accept universal common descent.

Wortfish wrote:

Fenrir wrote:
Precisely where in this image does red become blue?

At the top of the image.

However, the point is that - for speciation to be true in the exact sense of the word - the sapiens offspring would not be able (hypothetically speaking) to breed with its erectus mother.

Wortfish wrote:

Fenrir wrote:
Precisely where in this image does red become blue?

At the top of the image.

However, the point is that - for speciation to be true in the exact sense of the word - the sapiens offspring would not be able (hypothetically speaking) to breed with its erectus mother.

Wortfish wrote:

newolder wrote:Wortfish, From where did you extract that "3 million years old" figure?

Here: https://anthropology.net/2017/04/27/hom ... s-thought/

Homo naledi, the mosaic of archaic and modern human, whose discovery two years ago was published in the journal Elife was touted to be around 3 million years old.

Furthermore, while the skull had several unique features, it had a small braincase that was most similar in size to other early hominin species that lived between four million and two million years ago.

Shrunk wrote:
I know. So it's weird that you expect creationism to be considered scientific. In actual science, one is not concerned with accommodating a broad range of beliefs. Rather, the concern is with narrowing things down to what is correct

Shrunk wrote:
You think speciation occurs in the space of a generation?

Wortfish wrote:

Shrunk wrote:
I know. So it's weird that you expect creationism to be considered scientific. In actual science, one is not concerned with accommodating a broad range of beliefs. Rather, the concern is with narrowing things down to what is correct

I am not saying creationism is scientific. But the creationists called H. naledi to be much younger than was originally claimed by its discoverers. They noted that the remains were more bones than mineralised fossils. The fact is that Berger wanted naledi to be at least 2 million years old because it would make naledi an "ancestor" rather a relic and dead end.

"The geological age of the fossils is not yet known..."

Fenrir wrote:

Wortfish wrote:

Fenrir wrote:
Precisely where in this image does red become blue?

At the top of the image.

Too scared to try an actual answer?

However, the point is that - for speciation to be true in the exact sense of the word - the sapiens offspring would not be able (hypothetically speaking) to breed with its erectus mother.

Maybe, in Pokemon Science.

theropod wrote:

So, what have you to say for yourself? You wouldn't just make up some shit to score points would you? Either retract your assertion or provide a citation where the scientist clearly wanted a specific outcome. Failing that we can chalk up your posts as bullshit unworthy of this forum.RS

Wortfish wrote:

theropod wrote:

So, what have you to say for yourself? You wouldn't just make up some shit to score points would you? Either retract your assertion or provide a citation where the scientist clearly wanted a specific outcome. Failing that we can chalk up your posts as bullshit unworthy of this forum.RS

"H. naledi clearly sits near or at the root of the Homo genus". Lee Berger (discoverer)

“It could lie close to the origin of the genus Homo". Chris Stringer (Berger's bulldog)

Both men wanted naledi to be old enough to claim it as the ancestor linking the trasition between the australopithecines and humans. It would have been the missing link.