|
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
 Posted - 05/11/2010 : 20:21:06
|
Sorry about the formatting. It was a bitch. I left some things out but the whole article is linked to. This, to the best of my knowledge, is revolutionary thinking for a creationist. Sure he's ultimately wrong, but that he even finds difficulties with the evidence as it's usually presented from a YEC creationists point of view is startling.
This is from Edward Babinski’s news letter. All credit goes to him:
“ Creationist admits at AIG website that humans (dispersing from Tower of Babel [sic]) began shorter and small brained (H. habilis and H. rudolfensis) BOOKZ”
From: Answers Research Journal 3 (2010): 71-90.
Answers in Genesis
Abstract:
The baraminic status of fossil hominids was tested using statistical baraminology techniques. Eight previously published cladistic studies of fossil and extant hominids were reexamined with baraminic distance correlation (BDC) and multidimensional scaling (MDS). Results indicate that hominins may be divided into as many as four different holobaramins: (1) the genus Homo (including Australopithecus sediba), (2) the genus Paranthropus, (3) Australopithecus africanus, and (4) Gorilla, Pan, Australopithecus afarensis, and Australopithecus garhi. These results tentatively confirm the common creationist claim that fossil hominids can be divided into human and non-human categories. In contrast to many creationist claims, however, the present results indicate that Homo habilis, Homo rudolfensis, and—most surprisingly—Australopithecus sediba belong in the human holobaramin. Future studies should focus on including postcranial characters in baraminic distance calculations and developing a model for understanding biological similarity and the significance of human-like australopiths and the ape-like humans. |
Big snip:
Biblical and Cultural Context
A full review of the development of human holobaramin is beyond the scope of this paper, but a few contextual details can be noted. First, the extinct human taxa are entirely post-Flood (Snelling 2009, chap. 94; Whitmore and Garner 2008; Wise 2005). They do not represent pre-Flood populations buried during the Flood. Wise (1994; 2008) noted that the account of the Tower of Babel implies that humans distributed globally after the animals. This suggests that human fossils should occur stratigraphically higher than at least some ape fossils (such as australopiths).
Second, the placement of at least eight species (and possibly three others) within the human holobaramin broadens our understanding of “humanity.” It will no longer be possible to simply relegate a fossil form to Homo sapiens, as in the traditional creationist treatment of Neanderthals (for example, Custance 1968; Gish 1995, p. 305; Huse 2000, p. 138), in order to argue that a fossil is either human or ape. Additionally, the diversity of the human holobaramin indicates that humans also experienced post-Flood, intrabaraminic diversification, as hypothesized for animals and plants. The diversity of human species could represent a post-Babel diversification event or diversification of the Babel population prior to human dispersal.
Third, the dispersal of the human population from Babel would presumably have been led by H. habilis and H. rudolfensis, specimens of which appear stratigraphically lower than any other human species. Specimens of both of these species (and of “Au.” sediba) are known only from Africa, whereas the erectus-like species (H. erectus sensu stricto, H. ergaster, and the Dmanisi hominids) are the next stratigraphically and the first human species to disperse across the Old World. Global distribution was achieved only by Homo sapiens, the stratigraphically-highest of the major human species (see Wood and Lonergan [2008] for conventional dating and geographic occurrence of hominin fossils). Any model of post-Babel distribution must account for the appearance and disappearance of these human species in stratigraphic order… |
Snip:
despite the morphological discontinuity demonstrated here, the genetic similarity between humans and nonhumans is astonishingly high (Wood 2006) and the australopiths are surprisingly human in their appearance. Why should this be? It would be easy to attribute their similarities to a common designer, but such an attribution would be trivial. Certainly the similarities arise from a common source, but what distinguishes a common designer from a common ancestor? As Darwin (1859) wrote in Origin,
Nothing can be more hopeless than to attempt to explain this similarity of pattern in members of the same class, by utility or by the doctrine of final causes . . . . On the ordinary view of the independent creation of each being, we can only say that so it is;—that it has so pleased the Creator to construct each animal and plant (p. 435).
All the foregoing rules and aids and difficulties in classification are explained, if I do not greatly deceive myself, on the view that the natural system is founded on descent with modification; that the characters which naturalists consider as showing true affinity between any two or more species, are those which have been inherited from a common parent, and, in so far, all true classification is genealogical; that community of descent is the hidden bond which naturalists have been unconsciously seeking, and not some unknown plan of creation, or the enunciation of general propositions, and the mere putting together and separating objects more or less alike (p. 420).(Italics are Kil’s)
To answer this challenge specifically with humanlike animals (or ape-like humans) in mind, we must develop a new understanding of biological similarity, one that embraces common design and creation but that also explains the meaning of the similarities, which admittedly is a theological problem as much as a scientific one.
In the meantime, though, this present study should end charges against creationists that classification of australopiths or “early Homo” as human or ape is arbitrary and meaningless (for example, Conrad 1986–1987; Kitcher 1983, p. 154; Miller 2008, p. 93; Nickels 1986–1987). Rather than looking at a handful of traits or casually declaring australopiths to be apes, the present study has supported the separate classification of humans (genus Homo sensu lato) and as many as three groups containing australopith taxa, based on a suite of characters selected from conventional paleoanthropology studies. |
Edward added this after I asked him if there was a place I could link to that had his newsletter in full. Apparently there isn’t but he sent this:
EDWARD BABINSKI to Skeptic Friends:
Todd Wood, the creationist who made the admission has said other stuff as well that can be used in discussions with YECs who haven't studied the evidence as much as Wood has:
Prof. Todd Wood of Bryan College continues straining to accommodate data that clearly fits evolution. He even includes in his "human baramin" species that other creationists have insisted must be nothing but apes. Wood even admitted:
Evolution is not a theory in crisis. It is not teetering on the verge of collapse. It has not failed as a scientific explanation. There is evidence for evolution, gobs and gobs of it. It is not just speculation or a faith choice or an assumption or a religion. It is a productive framework for lots of biological research, and it has amazing explanatory power. There is no conspiracy to hide the truth about the failure of evolution. There has really been no failure of evolution as a scientific theory. It works, and it works well. (All bolding original) (Italics are Kil’s)
Creationism really is a science stopper
Wood's earlier paper on the genetic relationship of humans with apes is worth reading:
The Chimpanzee Genome and the Problem of Biological Similarity
in which he admits that creationists have no good arguments for denying the "common ancestry" interpretation of the chimp-human` genomic evidence.
Behe at the Discovery Institute also has come out in favor of common ancestry based on the genomic evidence, including not just overall similarity but based on shared non-functioning genes (for creating vitamin C for example, that are still there but no longer functioning in both chimps and humans), and shared non-functioning genes from retroviruses that have inserted themselves into the same regions of human and chimpanzee genomes.
Here's what Wood says about the latest findings concerning Y chromosome differences between chimps and humans:
Chimp and human Y chromosomes radically different?
"Does it change any of my conclusions in my chimp genome paper (sadly enough, the most popular thing I've ever written)? Not really. On the one hand, this is yet another example of a part of the human genome that really does significantly differ from the chimp genome. I documented some of those in the article, including the size difference in the Y chromosomes. I concluded that these differences are quite minor features that are overwhelmed by the near-identity of the rest of the human and chimp genomes. In the case of the MSY, it's important to keep in mind that the chimp MSY sequence reported by Hughes et al. is only 25.8 Mb. That's slightly less than 1% of the entire genome. Given that fixed nucleotide differences between the human and chimp genomes are around 1%, having yet another 1% difference in the very different Y chromosomes doesn't make the genomes that much more different than they already were."
"One other point I made in the chimp genome paper is relevant here:
...it is signifcant that the regions of highest variation between the genomes are also sites of the highest polymorphism rates...(Italics are Kil’s)
"The Y chromosome certainly fits that bill. Variations in the human Y chromosome are known to be much higher than in the human autosomes, and there are lots of segmental duplications on the human Y chromosome. It's not terribly surprising that such variable regions of human DNA would also be quite different from their chimpanzee counterparts.
"Unfortunately, I'm sure none of this will dampen the enthusiasm of those bent on denying the similarity of the human and chimp genomes."
ANOTHER COMMENTATOR POINTS OUT vis a vis Wood's latest paper:
“As with most YEC treatments of this issue, Wood fails to explain why, as one goes back in time (stratigraphically lower) the less like us the most advanced hominds look. Neither the "common designer" argument nor Flood geology begins to account for this, or the similar patterns for countless other animal and plant groups. YECs also fail to grasp that debating whether "humans" are descended from "apes" is largely moot in view of the fact that biologically and taxonomically we _are_ apes. Humans are members of the family hominidae (great apes) which includes gorillas, chimpanzees, orangutans, and several extinct genera. Then there is the contradiction between YECs denying evolution (at least macro-evolution), and their suggestion that major genetic changes (including the creation of new allelles--essentially "new information" ) took place since the Ark landed a few thousand years ago. That would require more rapid and dramatic evolution than even mainstream scientists allow, but they pretend to not notice these glaring inconsistencies, as they talk out of both sides of their mouth.” |
[Edited to fix bolding - Dave W.]
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 05/11/2010 : 20:53:53 [Permalink]
|
| Good article. Why on earth didn't you link to it? |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
 |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 05/11/2010 : 21:39:02 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Kil
Good article. Why on earth didn't you link to it? |
Dunno. Sometimes stuff happens right after I read something, and I forget to get back to it. Heck, I had to dig around on several blogs before re-finding this article on PT, so I didn't even remember where I'd read it. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 05/11/2010 : 22:29:23 [Permalink]
|
That's very interesting that AiG is in effect digging new trenches to the rear of their present position. They clearly see the need to at least appear to account for the increasingly obvious and multitudinous hominid fossils that are flooding real scientific paleontology.
My guess is that most of the YECs will follow suit. This strategic retreat is inevitable, as well. You can bet that the trench-diggers are already surveying positions even further to the rear. |
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 05/11/2010 : 23:19:00 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by HalfMooner
That's very interesting that AiG is in effect digging new trenches to the rear of their present position. They clearly see the need to at least appear to account for the increasingly obvious and multitudinous hominid fossils that are flooding real scientific paleontology.
My guess is that most of the YECs will follow suit. This strategic retreat is inevitable, as well. You can bet that the trench-diggers are already surveying positions even further to the rear.
|
I don't know if most YEC's will follow suit. Some of them are way too dug in to do that I suspect. I doubt that even most creationists at AIG will agree, let alone the ICR. We'll see.
But yeah, Todd Wood is actually looking at the fossil evidence and trying to make sense of it while at the same time remaining inside the young earth camp. The guy must run on cognitive dissonance. |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
the_ignored
SFN Addict
2562 Posts |
Posted - 05/12/2010 : 00:38:15 [Permalink]
|
I tried posting that over on Dan's blog. I don't know whether you can see my comment or not. It's supposed to be the 7th comment there.
|
>From: enuffenuff@fastmail.fm
(excerpt follows):
> I'm looking to teach these two bastards a lesson they'll never forget.
> Personal visit by mates of mine. No violence, just a wee little chat.
>
> **** has also committed more crimes than you can count with his
> incitement of hatred against a religion. That law came in about 2007
> much to ****'s ignorance. That is fact and his writing will become well
> know as well as him becoming a publicly known icon of hatred.
>
> Good luck with that fuckwit. And Reynold, fucking run, and don't stop.
> Disappear would be best as it was you who dared to attack me on my
> illness knowing nothing of the cause. You disgust me and you are top of
> the list boy. Again, no violence. Just regular reminders of who's there
> and visits to see you are behaving. Nothing scary in reality. But I'd
> still disappear if I was you.
What brought that on? this. Original posting here.
Another example of this guy's lunacy here. |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 05/12/2010 : 09:18:55 [Permalink]
|
More email this morning:
EDWARD BABINSKI to Skeptic Friends:
"A friend commented:
Wood's baraminological test may put sediba into Homo, but if you put an africanus and sediba side by side, they'd look like twins compared to any modern human.
Another friend commented:
I think the most telling line was: "..the genetic similarity between humans and nonhumans is astonishingly high (Wood 2006) and the australopiths are surprisingly human in their appearance. Why should this be? It would be easy to attribute their similarities to a common designer, but such an attribution would be trivial."
As with most YEC treatments of this issue, the authors also fail to explain why, as one goes back in time (stratigraphically lower) the less like us the most advanced hominds look. Neither the "common designer" argument nor Flood geology begins to account for this, or the similar patterns for countless other animal and plant groups. YECs also fail to grasp that debating whether "humans" are descended from "apes" is largely moot in view of the fact that biologically and taxonomically we _are_ apes. Humans are members of the family hominidae (great apes) which includes gorillas, chimpanzees, orangutans, and several extinct genera. Then there is the contradiction between YECs denying evolution (at least macro-evolution), and their suggestion that major genetic changes (including the creation of new allelles--essentially "new information" ) took place since the Ark landed a few thousand years ago. That would require more rapid and dramatic evolution than even mainstream scientists allow, but they pretend to not notice these glaring inconsistencies, as they talk out of both sides of their mouth."
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 05/12/2010 : 09:51:12 [Permalink]
|
I think a lot of YEC creationists will not be pleased at all by what Wood is suggesting. Placing a creature like Homo habilis or more dramatically Australopithecus sediba in his "human baramin" would mean that evolution happens (he said it does, even allowing for special creation), and it happens at a break neck speed. Things were nice and tidy. Homo sapien was it. Created and fully formed (whatever that means) in the image of God. Nuff said. All those other pesky creatures simply weren't human. They couldn't be by any traditional YEC standard.
This will be war. The war of the wrong headed. Add to the mix ID and OEC and there is trouble in River City my friends. With a capital T and that rhymes with B and that stands for bones...
What fun!!! |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
From AIG: Humans began shorter and small brained
