Doubting Didymus

I'm a bit confused. What do you mean by this?

pz

Yeah, me too. How does one interpret 15,000 year old human bones?

CJD

emotional, I'll be coming back to this when I find the time.

To answer pz and Doubting Didymus about the point in writing the following: "But it's also interesting that, AFAIK, we have no human deaths recorded earlier than 12,000 BCE."

Simply put, in its original context, I think I was making the point that humans haven't started dying until a time that would be compatible with the biblical Fall. One could easily say, of course, that humans had not started dying because they had not yet started living. Whatever. It works both ways.

It was also a veiled reference to the uniqueness of humanity. Some time ago, a poster here posted a rather good-looking thread that attempted to concisely delineate the bridge between homo sapiens and other bipeds. However, I remain unconvinced. There is no bridge. That's what is so extraordinary--no record of DNA shared between the two whatsoever (yet!). Please correct me if I am wrong about this.

In the end, it was just an aside, an interesting point that I interpret theistically—that a CreatorGod fashioned mankind after the last ice age c. 15,000-12,000 BCE. In other words, I don't see the scientific record proving much of a development of the evolutionary sort in humankind. But now we're way beyond the biblical-theological realm, and so I'll just shut my mouth.

Regards,

CJD

ps418

Mmmkaay. That's remarkably silly, if I say so myself. We have human bones (Homo sapiens sapiens) that are 160k years old, and other hominds from much earlier. That's evidence for human death 160k years ago, unless you think these individuals remained alive under sediment for 148,000 years. . .

Oh, and what in the world makes you say that "The Fall" was 12,000BCE? You're just pulling a numer out of your hat, aren't you?

Patrick

ps418

Interesting theistic 'interpetation,' given that anatomically modern humans go back at least 160,000 years, well before the last glacial cycle. Its kinda like how my daughter 'interprets' the moon to be just above the tallest trees.

Patrick

MortalWombat

I still don't know quite what you mean. As Patrick stated above, there are numerous fossils of anatomically modern humans that are more than tens of thousands of years old. In addition, there are mitochondrial DNA sequence data from 2 Cro-Magnon fossils dated 25,000 and 29,000 years old that show that genetically, Cro-Magnon falls within the range of modern humans. Presumably, those two 25-29,000 year old Cro-Magnons, which are established to be modern humans both anatomically and now genetically, had lived before they died. Here

I'm not sure what you mean by "other bipeds." If you are referring to fossil hominids, I just gave you an example above. Keep in mind that it is extremely difficult to get sequenceable DNA samples from fossils, and this is usually limited to mitochondrial DNA, since there are about 100 fold more copies of mitochondrial DNA per cell than nuclear DNA.

If you're not talking about fossil hominids, then the closest living relative to humans would be chimpanzees, which can walk on their hind legs, although they don't do it exclusively. And here we do have records of DNA shared between humans and chimps. And not just in overall sequence similarity, but also in shared "mistakes" not found in other animals.

For instance, humans and chimps share the same crippling deletion mutation in the non-functional GLO gene, which is required for Vitamin C biosynthesis. They also share the same extra non-functional steroid 21-hydroxylase pseudogene not found in other mammals. They also share seven identical Alu element (a type of transposable element, or "jumping gene") insertions in the alpha-globin gene cluster, all in the same positions and orientations, not shared by other mammals.

You can read about these and other "shared mistakes" here.

CJD

Please, folks, don't waste your time on my scientific ignorance. I will stand corrected on just about anything scientific. Just a few thoughts below:

1. Oldest humans bones 160k? Before 1997 the oldest remains were tens of thousands of years old (yes, I was pulling 12,000 BCE out of my hat). I am much more slowly convinced it seems than you are.

2. Secondly, DNA "within the range" just doesn't cut it, as far as I am concerned. "Close" does not mean "univocal", it means "close, but no cigar" (I thought Herto was a "sub-species" at best?). And yes, I was referring only to fossil hominids.

3. Do common pseudogenes equal common descent?

Regards,

CJD

MortalWombat

Apparently."Within the range" refers to being within the limits of normal human mitochondrial DNA variation. If you want something that says it is "exactly like" modern human mitochondrial DNA, then you are out of luck, since there is no single modern human mitochondrial DNA sequence, but a range of closely related sequences.
It's about as close to a slam dunk as you can get without having access to a time machine and a camcorder. Not that there needed to be this particular slam dunk in order to establish common descent between humans and chimps, but in my opinion, it's the final nail in a coffin that is, by this time, composed of about 99% nails and 1% wood.

excreationist

CJD:
I was wondering what opinions you had on other parts of scripture... (to try and get an idea of how literal you take the Bible) Could you say if these are literal or not? I'll try not to dwell on the NT subjects much.
- Mary gave birth to Jesus as a virgin.
- Jesus was physically dead for about 2 days.
- Jesus performed many miracles - including making the blind see, etc.
- Jesus exorcized demons.
- The sun and moon stopped moving (from the earth's POV) for about a day (Joshua 10) - is that "historical"?
I was wondering how you tell if something is historical or not - whether you rely more on science than just taking the Bible at face value.

ps418

Wrong again. The H. sapiens bones from Qafzeh were dated to 90-100ky+ well before 1997. And even without Qafzeh, that clams depends on the definition of human you are assuming. If you consider H. sapeins neanderthalensis human, then this is quite wrong. If you consider H. erectus and/or H. ergaster human, then this is even more wrong.

I know.

Its not a matter of being convinced so much as it is being aware of the pertinent facts.

Patrick