New Thoughts on Human Origins.

by fulltimestudent 10 Replies latest jw friends

  • fulltimestudent

    This article appeared originally in New Scientist (July 4, 2018) under the heading:

    "Asia’s mysterious role in the early origins of humanity"

    Bizarre fossils from China are revealing our species' Asian origins and rewriting the story of human evolution"


    But without a subscription or a library connection, you may not be able to access the article.

    This version (below) appeared in the Hongkong based, South China Morning Post. That paper is now owned by Chinese billionaire, Jack Ma.


    Under the heading:

    "How fossils found in Asia could rewrite history of human evolution and migration out of Africa."

    A century on from Peking Man, the discovery of fossils in China and beyond over the last decade has given palaeoanthropologists pause for thought, suggesting that, maybe, Africa was not the only ‘human cradle’"

    In both cases, the author is given as Kate Douglas.

  • Perry
    A century on from Peking Man, the discovery of fossils in China and beyond over the last decade has given palaeoanthropologists pause for thought, suggesting that, maybe, Africa was not the only ‘human cradle’"

    Wasn't Peking Man reclassified as homo erectus?

    And haven't homo erectus remains been found all around the world? Found in the same strata and close proximity to homo sapiens? With the same inner ear structure as modern humans? With a brain capacity within the modern range of variance in humans? With limbs indistinguishable from "modern" humans?

    Evolutionists believe erectus to be sub-human based on certain features of the skull like the large brow ridges. But this is not evidence at all, because humans today have essentially all of these features.[1]

    The cranial (i.e. brain) capacity is within the human range;[2] there is good evidence that erectus used tools; had controlled use of fire; they buried their dead; they used red ochre for decoration; had seafaring skills;[3] and their posture was just like ours.[4]

    Based on the above evidence, many prominent scientists have classified Homo erectus as Homo sapiens(modern man) because ‘no single definition has been found that distinguishes H. sapiens from H. erectus in all regions where the fossils are found’ and ‘there is no distinct beginning for H. sapiens as long as H. erectus is recognized.’[5]

  • Finkelstein

    Posting that picture of a man living today just shows how disingenuous and intellectually dishonest you are Christian Perry.

  • Finkelstein
  • Half banana
    Half banana

    Perry, to quote from Evolution Dismantled as you do, is not the way to clarify complex issues such as the provenance of our ancestral species. The right sources of reference are from the painstaking research and analysis of paleoanthropologists who devote their lives to understanding these things, some of whose words are missapropriated in your copied text.

    As for "many prominent Scientists have quoted Homo erectus as Homo sapiens". Firstly, can't you see that it sounds just like Watchtower propaganda? No scientist uses the expression "many prominent scientists" because it carries no weight of evidence. What is critically important is the geology and stratum in which the fossil was found, the detailed evidence of morphology to place it within the existing phylogenetic tree. Not forgetting the multidisciplinary dating appraisal of the soils and rocks as well as the fossil.

    Secondly the labelling of species (taxonomy) is a permanent scholarly tug of war between the "splitters" and the "lumpers", those who wish to form new species or genera and those who would place them under existing labels. There are no divinely ordained "kinds". . . So whatever the taxa, habilis, erectus or heidlebergensis as species, it does not deny them being ancestral to sapiens.

    The science regarding human evolution has not yet been fully written, there is a lot yet to be discovered and discoveries are being made more frequently than ever in this field. Understandably science is a long way off from having a complete record-- but what the evidence most certainly is NOT showing us, is any basis for a mythical and miraculous creation of Adam and Eve.

  • Perry


    What is your opinion of these scientific findings?

  • Finkelstein

    Perry just because something unusual occurs within scientific study doesn't mean that everything obtained and accepted is therefore nullified and untrue.

    Young earth creationists tried to assert that so called soft tissue found in dinosaur bones meant that these fossils were not millions of years old, these unusual findings have now been explained.

    All sciences such as geological evolution, biological evolution, astrophysics etc. coincide in support that the earth and its many living organisms are very old.

    The evidence is monumental, so give up the Bible's mythology expressions of the earth being only a few thousand years old, it is redundantly ignorant upon the facts and "all" of the apparent evidence..

  • Perry

    Evolutionary paleoanthropologist Milford Wolpoff wrote, ‘In my view, “objectivity” does not exist in science. Even in the act of gathering data, decisions about what data to record and what to ignore reflect the framework of the scientist.’

    Evolutionists John Gribbin and Jeremy Cherfas acknowledge, ‘…we do know that the popular image of the scientist as a dispassionate seeker after the truth could not be further from reality.’

    Half Bananna,

    Everyone has a starting point. That starting point sifts data accordingly as the two evolutionists above admit, to their credit.

    After I left the .org I spent a few years researching various topics, including evolution. And, I just didn't see the evidence stack up enough. I spot check my position now and then and I still come up with the same skepticism on evolution, only usually stronger. I still have one or two questions that don't seem to fit. But by far there are more problems with the standard Materialist paradigm than with ID in my opinion.

    If 99% of what makes up a specimen is missing already when we examine just the bones; And, if those bones are not indistinguishable from at least some modern humans ....? Where's the beef?

    Apes, many of which have already gone extinct, admittedly have a structure similar to that of humans. But this could just as easily point to a common Designer and not a common ancestor, depending on the "framework" of the researcher. And, with 99% of the specimen missing, I just don't see the justification for all the ape to men characterizations.

    New discoveries are being made at an amazing pace, the majority of which do not fit the standard evolutionary model from what I've seen. The last link I posted above lists thousands of findings, that if any one of them are true, destroys the standard evolutionary tale.

    This is a list of 3000 Phd scientists who are skeptical of darwinian evolution.

    Here's another unrelated list., available for download.

    And, I do understand how disturbing this information is to some who have already been deceived at great personal cost by the Watchtower.

  • cofty

    Why should you expect anybody to engage with you about this Perry, when you admit you have never read a single scientific book in your entire life?

    Here are 40 threads presenting some of the facts. Feel free to use evidence to debunk any of them.

  • Finkelstein

    And, I do understand how disturbing this information is to some who have already been deceived at great personal cost by the Watchtower.

    The most stupidest statement that has come out your mouth so far Perry

    WTS indoctrination has nothing to do with scientific knowledge under peer review .

Share this