Have evolutionists been so blinded by their own silly fantasy that they think that homo erectus wasn't just another race of man, comparable to the fossil aboriginals found in Australia (save for brain size, though that isn't indicative of intelligence (another evolutionist lie))?
Homo Erectus: Just a Human?
Connor Robinson
Other urls found in this thread:
answersingenesis.org
researchgate.net
pnas.org
references.260mb.com
creationwiki.org
youtu.be
twitter.com
Ayden Lee
hello again, creationist fuckwit.
in the last thread, you continued your usual fact-free shitposting, tried to distract from that time (a few threads ago) when you posted an obviously photoshopped pic of cave paintings and tried to claim it was real and that there was a conspiracy to cover it up, and generally made an ass of yourself.
and then you dared me to refute some fuckstupid claims of yours, as a means of diverting the conversation from that shooped embarrassment. and when I did , you suddenly got silent and let the thread expire.
I am here to tell you that you don't get to make a new thread and run away from all the embarrassingly idiotic things you have said.
as usual, you can't defend any of your claims; your only tactic is to try and change the subject.
but because you posted some bones, this is now a skeleton thread.
Camden Morales
oh and seriously, just look at the lateral profiles of the three skulls. a small child could tell you that the first is different from the other three. you'd have to be delusional to think otherwise.
how long will creationists continue posting material that directly refutes their own claims?
Robert Edwards
Owen Garcia
trying to change the subject again, hmm? it won't help you; literally everything you post is trash.
the telling thing about what you just linked to is that NOWHERE IN IT does it reference any kind of morphometric study. LITERALLY ALL THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED is some guy (mostly creationists with no actual credentials desu senpai) qualitatively describing shape and saying "well, it looks kinda like this".
the problem with this is that we actually have ways of quantifying shape and shape change; it's a field called morphometrics, and I know quite a bit about it because the thesis I'm currently writing is a morphometrics project. it's possible to mathematically represent the shape of a specimen using landmarks or outlines, and determine WITH STATISTICAL RIGOR how different populations are from each other, and establish whether there is a statistically significant trend.
and it just so turns out that when you do THAT instead of just eyeballing it (which is incredibly subjective; skulls that look similar to an ignorant creationist may be easily distinguished by an actual anthropologist), you find that there ARE significant differences between modern and ancient humans, and that there's a significant directional trend over evolutionary history.
>researchgate.net
>pnas.org
>references.260mb.com
get dunked on.
Ayden Jones
...
Isaiah Morris
...
Jose Perez
...
Aiden Kelly
still nothing, huh?
Aaron Wood
Isaac Martin
not an argument
not an argument
not an argument
Evan Cox
I'll just clear something up here, wannabe creationist Molymeme:
isn't and obviously wasn't intended as an argument, so you're right, but it doesn't matter.
A tree isn't a door, until you turn it into a door.
Up until that point, saying a tree isn't a door is valid, but pointless.
Is an argument, as it points out a flaw (an overt one) in your apparent 'evidence'. - By the way, the evidence itself refutes your argument.
Is also an argument and a better one than the one above, as it actually includes sources, it also refutes your claims.
So, in short, your retort to two arguments was a non-argument itself as therefore invalid.
You were right on one count, but it doesn't matter, as it wasn't intended as an argument.
Learn to make valid points, or fuck off.
Isaiah Adams
me, an intellectual:
>sources claiming that specimens assigned to H. erectus are within the normal realm of variation for H. sapiens sapiens rely on outdated figures and simplistic metrics that don't accurately represent physiological shape. the approaches are entirely qualitative, which makes scoring highly subjective. modern morphometric studies, which actually quantify shape and assess changes in shape with statistical rigor, universally find that not only is early Homo skull morphology significantly different from that of modern humans, but early Homo specimens become more and more similar to modern humans as time progressed, showing clear evidence of morphological change from one (plesiomorphic) state to another (apomorphic) one.
you, a moron:
>uhhhhhhhhhhhhh hurr not an argument durr
Chase Ward
That ain't me, I'm
Cameron Mitchell
>early Homo make sharp rocks
>late Homo make fine-edged axes, intricate tools and figurines
totally the same thing, no evolutionary change here!
faggot
Daniel King
>dehumanizing man
How sick are you?
youtu.be
Camden Rivera
>how dare you suggest that these fossils were in any way different from modern humans
not an argument, buddy
keep trying to distract from your inability to explain why morphometric analyses consistently find:
a) significant differences between early Homo and modern H. sapiens sapiens, and
b) a directional trend showing early Homo becoming more and more like H. sapiens sapiens over time.
can you refute ANYTHING in or either of the three papers linked in it?
Jose Kelly
But aren't Erectus considered a successful Eurasian offshoot of the African Ergaster? Unless you're suggesting the even more racist multi-regional hypothesis, that is (pic related).
Jackson Baker
Give it up, Christian. You're only going to proselytize morons, and you're welcome to them. You'd probably have more success on another board.
Ethan Miller
One must strike the tree at its base, and tear out the roots.
Benjamin Johnson
>homo erectus
Jeremiah Moore
Yeah we get it. Science isn't simple and you crave simplicity. Because you're simple.
David Price
>seeing yourselves as the smart ones
Hudson Allen
...
Oliver Thomas
name one (1) practical, industrial application of the creationist model.
until you can come up with one, evolution is the status quo.
Carter Price
>denser bones than us
>lol totally same species as us dudes XD
Joseph Peterson
>aren't Erectus considered a successful Eurasian offshoot of the African Ergaster?
It's ambiguous whether Eurasian "erectus" is descended from African "ergaster" or whether they represent regional populations of the same chronospecies.
And excuse me, what the fuck does that have to do with literally anything he said?
>any explanation I don't like or can't understand is bad
Reminder: your """"explanation"""" for literally everything is "God did it, but then made it hard to figure out just to test our faith".
Caleb Rivera
"Early homo" encompasses habilis, rudolfensis, and ergaster. Since ergaster is the species from which we are supposedly descended, any changes observed in eurasian erectus would be unique unto themselves and not part of the group that was "modernizing," and therefore cannot be used to justify evolution, as they are an offshoot, not a link.
Wyatt Brooks
>Since ergaster is the species from which we are supposedly descended
you're assuming that there was no gene flow between African ("ergaster") populations and Asian ("erectus") populations, and also that there was no later interbreeding between more modern humans and relict erectus-descended populations. amazingly enough, you're wrong on both counts. (ever heard of the Denisovans?)
>any changes observed in eurasian erectus would be unique unto themselves and not part of the group that was "modernizing," and therefore cannot be used to justify evolution, as they are an offshoot, not a link.
you're literally saying that evolution only counts as evolution if it's leading to modern humans. when a population undergoes change (and ultimately speciation) over time, THAT is evolution! whether or not it leads directly to US is irrelevant!
and again, do you have ANY refutation to anything in ?
Levi Moore
>Homo Erection
>evolutionists been so blinded
L0Lno fgt pls
Daniel Ortiz
>muh stats
>muh numbers
>muh rigor
As with the Neanderthals, they are merely mensch. Not ubermensch, nor urmensch, just mensch.
Easton Peterson
thats even implying they can actually date rocks and cave paint, not just nearby fires or organic material up to 50,000 years
Wyatt Hill
morphometrics is what allows us to definitively identify remains when contamination makes DNA fingerprinting impossible. it fucking WORKS.
but as soon as it conflicts with
>muh uhpinyuns
apparently you just throw it out the window.
typical creationist; when they don't like the evidence, they just stick their fingers in their ears and ignore it.
Wyatt Jones
Same could be said for you.
Joshua Gutierrez
from what i can tell that person spent a good amount of time studying it instead of ignoring it and shit posting in an effort to convince people(for some reason on Veeky Forums) that evolution is non-existent. I mean this guy is coming in from the angle of morphometrics and anthropology but there's a fuckton of other material to back the evolutionary theory. It is, however, a theory and must be constantly tested. The same goes for gravity....
Michael White
I'd just as soon say just ignore the little fucktard and let the thread die.
Bentley Howard
3quoque5me