Creationism

Famousdebater: What do you think that fossils of the homo erectus or the homo habilis are if they are animals that evolved into humans?

You probably wanted to say if they aren't [b/] animals, but I understood. I really don't know on homo habilis, though I'm leaning towards ape. Homo erectus is pretty clearly human, on account that even some evolutionists have claimed they are are one and the same.

Shoot, I messed that one up. I meant to just bold "aren't."

Random Stranger: You probably wanted to say if they aren't [b/] animals

No. I wanted to say if they are animals that evolved into humans. Humans and the species that evolved into species are still all animals.

I really don't know on homo habilis, though I'm leaning towards ape.

Any reason for this opinion?

Homo erectus is pretty clearly human, on account that even some evolutionists have claimed they are are one and the same.

There are some key differences between the Homo erectus and the homo sapien. If you agree that humans have evolved (at least from homo erectus to homo sapiens) then you agree that evolution is possible and occur.

We have a larger skull and brain size; we're of a lighter build; our forehead has a sharper rise; the back of our skull is rounded; our teeth are smaller, etc. These are all major and key differences between the homo sapien and the homo erectus. Since you have already conceded that they are clearly both human, you basically concede evolution (at least part of it).

Famousdebater: Any reason for this opinion?

The fact that homo habilis has a more concave slope to its face, and an sunken nose, like all of humans

If you agree that humans have evolved (at least from homo erectus to homo sapiens) then you agree that evolution is possible and occur.

No, I'm saying that homo erectus and sapian are the same species. Erectus is nothing more than an extinct race of humans, and as I said, there are evolutionists that believe the same thing.

Random Stranger: *nose, like all apes.

Random Stranger: No, I'm saying that homo erectus and sapian are the same species. Erectus is nothing more than an extinct race of humans, and as I said, there are evolutionists that believe the same thing.

They are different to humans. We can observe the improvement from the homo erectus to the homo sapien in its adaption to its environment. And the appeal to authority fallacy you commit isn't boosting your case. Just because some people that agree with evolution also agree with you, doesn't mean that that your opinion is any more valid. There are may people that agree with both me and you, telling me that doesn't improve, change or validate your opinion in any way.

Random Stranger: The fact that homo habilis has a more concave slope to its face, and an sunken nose, like all of humans

That's because we are a common ancestor of apes. Homo habilis is closer related to the common ancestor than the homo erectus or the homo sapien. And since the ape branches off of the common ancestor it is completely coinciding with evolution that the homo habilis has similar features to the ape.

The ape is of course a distant cousin of ours.

Random Stranger: God made the earht

Americaspear: Was that sarcastic?

Famousdebater: And the appeal to authority fallacy you commit isn't boosting your case.

Sorry, I've informally debated a lot of people online about Creationsim, and most of them have the following idea: Anything said by a Creationist is a blatant, baseless lie made by Creationst elites to brainwash their "followers." Never believe anything stated by a Creationist regarding evolution or observations.

I didn't know if you held this prejudice, so I added the fact that the idea is not just in Creationist circles.

Famousdebater: The ape is of course a distant cousin of ours.

You're stating everything in question as fact. Habilis could be a extinct type of ape, and erectus could be a human. Unless we had their DNA, we can't know, so all of our theories come from interpretation of the evidence.

Random Stranger: You're stating everything in question as fact.

That's because the things I say as if they're fact are facts.

Habilis could be a extinct type of ape, and erectus could be a human. Unless we had their DNA, we can't know, so all of our theories come from interpretation of the evidence.



Our second Chromosome is the fusion of two chromosomes with 3 telomeres and 2 centromeres. This is different to our usual chromosomes that are simply T-C-T in formation. This is because of a fusion between our ancesterol ape chromosomes (they have two more chromosomes than us).

So, when you look at our 2nd chromosome, you see that our genetics have uniquely identifying remnants from our ape ancestors; we're genetically made from two fused ape chromosomes.

Famousdebater: That's because the things I say as if they're fact are facts.

I'm confused. Are you saying that it is a fact that homo habilis and homo erectus are ancestors of humans?

...you see that our genetics have uniquely identifying remnants from our ape ancestors; we're genetically made from two fused ape chromosomes.

Not quite: http://creation.com/chromosome-2-fusion-1#endRef8

For anyone who doesn't what to read through this beast, I will provide some key quotes.

Based on the predicted model, thousands of intact motifs in tandem should exist... For the TTAGGG repeat to the left of the fusion site, less than 35 motifs exist, a normal human telomere would typically have 1667 to 2500.6 For the CCCTAA reverse complement sequence, to the right of the fusion site, less than 150 telomere motifs can be found. Another problem with these two motifs, that we document in our companion research paper, is that their occurrences are found scattered throughout both sides of the fusion site where they would not be expected. In other words, both the forward and reverse complement of the telomere motif populate both sides of the fusion site.

The only evolutionary research group to seriously analyze the actual fusion site DNA sequence data in detail were confounded by the results which showed a lack of evidence for fusion...

Random Stranger: You're stating everything in question as fact.

That's because the things I say as if they're fact are facts.

Habilis could be a extinct type of ape, and erectus could be a human. Unless we had their DNA, we can't know, so all of our theories come from interpretation of the evidence.



Our second Chromosome is the fusion of two chromosomes with 3 telomeres and 2 centromeres. This is different to our usual chromosomes that are simply T-C-T in formation. This is because of a fusion between our ancesterol ape chromosomes (they have two more chromosomes than us).

So, when you look at our 2nd chromosome, you see that our genetics have uniquely identifying remnants from our ape ancestors; we're genetically made from two fused ape chromosomes.

Random Stranger: Ignore that repost. I'm not sure why that happened.

Random Stranger: I'm confused. Are you saying that it is a fact that homo habilis and homo erectus are ancestors of humans?

Yes.

or anyone who doesn't what to read through this beast, I will provide some key quotes.

Find me a non-bias source and I'll consider the information. Creation.com is clearly a biased site - this is incontestable.

Famousdebater: Find me a non-bias source and I'll consider the information.
Modern mainstream science is bias towards Darwinian evolution. Does that mean we shouldn't consider any information from the major mainstream science sources?

Bi0Hazard: Modern mainstream science is bias towards Darwinian evolution. Does that mean we shouldn't consider any information from the major mainstream science sources?

Modern mainstream science formulates premises based on evidence, facts and observation. Creationism formulates its views from a book it deems to be holy. This book says that the universe was made in 6 days; that an omnipotent God needed a day of rest and that this all loving God also sacrificed his son to save humanity from original sin when he had the power to remove original sin without sacrificing his son (who was a part of him in the trinity).

Bias exists in everything when somebody makes a conclusion based on logic and evidence it is clearly preferable to a book that is considered to be holy by somebody for no clear reason other than that either they were born into a religious family or they had some sort of experience causing them to believe in God.

Famousdebater: Modern mainstream science formulates premises based on evidence, facts and observation.
Mainstream scientists don't have a time machine to go to prehistoric times, so they don't know things like the age of the earth, origin of life, or path of evolution. All they can do is make assumptions and speculate. Darwin's theory was accepted and people attempted to fit our scientific observations into it. It is clear bias.

Bi0Hazard: Mainstream scientists don't have a time machine to go to prehistoric times, so they don't know things like the age of the earth, origin of life, or path of evolution.

And creationists don't a time machine either. They have a book that was written over a long time period by many people (riddled with fallacies and inaccuracies) with little - no evidence of proof in support of it.

Yes, mainstream scientists cannot observe these events, a posteriori, but they can conclude them using evidence and proof. We can't see gravity. Does that mean that gravity doesn't exist? There is pretty much no speculation over the existence of gravity yet we cannot physically observe gravity itself (only demonstration of things that help to prove gravity). The same logic applies to concepts such as evolution.

All they can do is make assumptions and speculate.

Creationists? Yes. Evolutionists? No. They don't have assumptions. They have evidence. Fused telomeres and celomeres in the combination of two ape chromosomes in our second chromosome is basically what we've used to conclude evolution a fact beyond reasonable doubt.

Darwin's theory was accepted and people attempted to fit our scientific observations into it. It is clear bias.

At first, yes. That's because Darwin had to make a lot of assumptions based on observation of finches. This is because Darwin was alive long before the Human Genome Project. However, since then we have masses of genetic evidence filling in the gaps of the assumptions that Darwkin made (essentially proving his theory).