Abiogenesis - The Impossible Theoretical Miracle

originally posted by: peter vlar
. The biggest difference between Denisovans and H. Naledi is that we have literally hundreds of remains of H. Naledi from the Rising Star Cace system in South Africa

^These are the "hundreds of remains of H Naledi"

This missing link is missing so many parts, how can they empirically suggest anything from this?

Please feel free to ignore science though if it hurts your religious sensivilities.

Can't you see they are speculating? They are assuming the theory is correct, and using insufficient evidence to support their opinion. It blows my mind that this small collection of bones, without ONE full skull, is believed to be an intermediate species. Don't you realize how ridiculous this is? Or do you believe literally everything the science gods say?

a reply to: cooperton

Do you have a qualification in comparative palaeontology? Or a qualification in basic biology? Or are you just a self-appointed expert in these things without actually having seen and studied the remains?

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: peter vlar
. The biggest difference between Denisovans and H. Naledi is that we have literally hundreds of remains of H. Naledi from the Rising Star Cace system in South Africa

^These are the "hundreds of remains of H Naledi"

This missing link is missing so many parts, how can they empirically suggest anything from this?

Please feel free to ignore science though if it hurts your religious sensivilities.

Can't you see they are speculating? They are assuming the theory is correct, and using insufficient evidence to support their opinion. It blows my mind that this small collection of bones, without ONE full skull, is believed to be an intermediate species. Don't you realize how ridiculous this is? Or do you believe literally everything the science gods say?

This is a complete misrepresentation of the evidence for H. Naledi. Rising Star Cave System has the largest cache of fossils from our genus ever found in one location. While you're photo certainly shows over 1500 fossils of H. Naledi, when I said hundreds, I may have misspoke, but there were complete remains for at least 15 individuals in one cave and they've recently discovered other chambers holding the remains of 2 adults and a child. Trying to claim that the photo you posted is the entirety of the remains from all of huge H. Naledi remains is an outright lie. As for it being an "intermediate species", those are your words not mine. They were contemporaneous with anatomically modern humans possessing a combination of archaic features seen in Australopithecines and more modern morphologies associated with H. Sapiens. Last May, endocranial casts showed that while their brains were smaller than ours, they were structurally similar. This means they're more closely related to,us than Neanderthal.

If you don't believe me, just head to South Africa. Lee Berger has an open door policy allowing people,to view the remains and if you have a 3D printer you can download everything and print output your own copies of the fossils. Please tell me how they were able to produce an endocranial cast without a skull.

And no, I don't believe everything the "science gods" have to say. I worked with them, studied under them and did research for them. I'm perfectly capable of looking at the evidence and making my own opinions and contrary to your stance, I don't always agree.

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg
a reply to: cooperton

Do you have a qualification in comparative palaeontology? Or a qualification in basic biology? Or are you just a self-appointed expert in these things without actually having seen and studied the remains?

I know anatomy well enough to say that the majority of the mass of that skull is missing

there were complete remains for at least 15 individuals in one cave and they've recently discovered other chambers holding the remains of 2 adults and a child.

So where are the pictures of these other, more complete fossils? There must be actual skull fragments - not replicas that extrapolate on the sparse skeletal remains

You should probably understand that any 'continuous process' doesn't stop for thousands of years, right?


You would understand that's not 'science', to still believe in such nonsense, yes?


That's exactly what evolution sadly asserts, though, in a nutshell.

a reply to: turbonium1

I'll post this twice as it applies to two of your posts, with regards to evidence [Truth] and its evaluation [Potential Lies].

The river tells no lies,
though standing on the shore,
the dishonest man still hears them

This is why we must apply critical thinking and evaluation within all subject matters.

Otherwise we all fall to dishonesty or gullibility and we listen to though's whom's beliefs makes one feel better about ones self, like the afterlife and such.

Coomba98
[rip Stargate]

a reply to: turbonium1

I wish you folks would take a course in the King's English. Your post is totally incomprehensible. What exactly does evolution say? And please include documented evidence.

You should probably understand that any 'continuous process' doesn't stop for thousands of years, right? You would understand that's not 'science', to still believe in such nonsense, yes?That's exactly what evolution sadly asserts, though, in a nutshell.

a reply to: cooperton

If you're so skilled in anatomy, tell us exactly what parts are missing. As for your research skills, they are nonexistent. Over 1500 fossils of H. Naledi were found in the Rising Star cave.

Human Evolution: The many mysteries of Homo naledi
Chris Stringer Is a corresponding author Natural History Museum, United Kingdom

Abstract More than 1500 fossils from the Rising Star cave system in South Africa have been assigned to a new human species, Homo naledi,which displays a unique combination of primitive and derived traits throughout the skeleton.

Main text

When the recovery of fossil hominin remains from the Rising Star cave system near Johannesburg in South Africa was widely publicised in 2013 and 2014, I'm sure I wasn't the only one who thought that the coverage had more hype than substance.But now, in two papers in eLife, we can see what the fuss was all about as Lee Berger of the University of the Witwatersrand, Paul Dirks of James Cook University and an international team of colleagues report the discovery of more than 1500 fossils that represent at least 15 individuals (Berger et al., 2015; Dirks et al., 2015). These remains have now been assigned to a new human species, which has been named Homo naledi. However, despite the wealth of information about the physical characteristics of H. naledi that this collection provides, many mysteries remain. How old are the fossils? Where does H. naledi fit in the scheme of human evolution? And how did the remains arrive deep within the cave system?

elifesciences.org... ick&contentCollection=meter-links-click

Note that this article was written in 2015. By now, there's probably all sorts of research on H. Naledi particularly DNA analysis.

Why don't you people read the literature. Why don't you read the papers that are posted here? Why are you even interested in this subject?

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg
a reply to: cooperton

Do you have a qualification in comparative palaeontology? Or a qualification in basic biology? Or are you just a self-appointed expert in these things without actually having seen and studied the remains?

I know anatomy well enough to say that the majority of the mass of that skull is missing

But don't know enough to keep looking and simply refute something based on a single Wikipedia photo without bothering to look any further. You're not looking for answers or truth, you're looking to continuously reaffirm your own confirmation biases. Nothing more.

there were complete remains for at least 15 individuals in one cave and they've recently discovered other chambers holding the remains of 2 adults and a child.

So where are the pictures of these other, more complete fossils? There must be actual skull fragments - not replicas that extrapolate on the sparse skeletal remains

I told you exactly where to find them. Dr. Lee Berger, University of the Witwatersrand I'm S. Africa gives away everything. It's all online. You can print out your own skull on a 3D printer from the scans of the remains. It's not my job to engage in due diligence for,you. You're the lazy one who didn't do any research and pulled a photo off of Wikipedia as if you had just pulled a chair out from under a kid in 3rd grade. You haven't got the foggiest clue what you're talking about when you say sparse remains. In the photo that you think makes everything irrelevant, there are the remains of nearly every anatomical feature of H. Naledi. It may be spread out across a handful of individuals, but the sum of the parts far exceeds what your meager grasp of the subject matter is that we are discussing. Please get a library card and educate yourself because despite your claim, you obviously don't know nearly as much about A&P as you've convinced yourself of. Last I checked, you don't have a background in Archaic Hominids or Paleoanthropology. You are not qualified to dismiss evidence that you don't understand. Deal with it, you're out of your depth.

a reply to: turbonium1

And if you ever left your cave and read a book, you would know that modern humans today, are STILL evolving. Every single new generation of H. Sapiens is different from their parents on a genetic level. SNP's occur frequently during cell replication. It's not that hard to understand if you actually read a book or a journal. If the big words are scary, just come back and ask and I'll help,you sound them out real slow like so that you have time to absorb it.

originally posted by: peter vlar
a reply to: turbonium1

And if you ever left your cave and read a book, you would know that modern humans today, are STILL evolving. Every single new generation of H. Sapiens is different from their parents on a genetic level. SNP's occur frequently during cell replication. It's not that hard to understand if you actually read a book or a journal. If the big words are scary, just come back and ask and I'll help,you sound them out real slow like so that you have time to absorb it.

From the top of my head:

- We're loosing our first lower pre-molar and wisdom teeth;
- our chins are receeding
- we're getting taller
- our Pinky's are getting smaller
- we're getting less hairier

And there is more. Humans from. 2000 years ago have several differences from contemporary humans, let alone 20000 year old ones.

a reply to: JameSimon
14to 5 000 years we've gained Lactose persistence (ability to drink milk) in several groups. Not once, but three different times (different groups). All these groups had something in common, they herded cattle. Mammals tend to not remain lactose persistent past weening. Yet here we are with Humans having gained that. Mind creationists will ignore that, as its at the edge of what they consider "history". Or perhaps it was Gods will.

We've gained a number of Single Nucleotide Polymorphism based mutations to our hemoglobin, which either allow better survival against malaria or to survive better at high altitude.

etc
etc
etc

So anyone who says we have not changed over time, and in adaptive ways, clearly is not reading any thing about our species

a reply to: Noinden

Don’t forget that while humans developed the lactase persistence snpj, the cattle they had been herding started producing milk that was easier for adults to digest it. And as you point out, it occurred separately in Europe, Africa and the M.E. If turbonium and the brain trust want to use their mad sim research skillZz, the specific mutation is -13910*

Further reading- Lactase persistence

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: JameSimon
14to 5 000 years we've gained Lactose persistence (ability to drink milk) in several groups. Not once, but three different times (different groups)

originally posted by: peter vlar
a reply to: Noinden

Don’t forget that while humans developed the lactase persistence snpj, the cattle they had been herding started producing milk that was easier for adults to digest it.

You guys are making up stories. ALL humans can digest lactose, otherwise they wouldn't have made it past infancy. Lactase persistence is an epigenetic phenonemon in which the lactase gene remains turned on. There was no evolution required.

" Epigenetically-controlled regulatory elements were found to account for the differences in lactase mRNA levels between individuals, intestinal cell types and species" Article (2016)

originally posted by: peter vlar
In the photo that you think makes everything irrelevant, there are the remains of nearly every anatomical feature of H. Naledi.

So that is the best actual collection of "H. Naledi"? It appears the missing link is missing most of its skull and hip bone.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: JameSimon
14to 5 000 years we've gained Lactose persistence (ability to drink milk) in several groups. Not once, but three different times (different groups)

originally posted by: peter vlar
a reply to: Noinden

Don’t forget that while humans developed the lactase persistence snpj, the cattle they had been herding started producing milk that was easier for adults to digest it.

You guys are making up stories. ALL humans can digest lactose, otherwise they wouldn't have made it past infancy. Lactase persistence is an epigenetic phenonemon in which the lactase gene remains turned on. There was no evolution required.

" Epigenetically-controlled regulatory elements were found to account for the differences in lactase mRNA levels between individuals, intestinal cell types and species" Article (2016)

originally posted by: peter vlar
In the photo that you think makes everything irrelevant, there are the remains of nearly every anatomical feature of H. Naledi.

So that is the best actual collection of "H. Naledi"? It appears the missing link is missing most of its skull and hip bone.

Wrong. The gene turns off after infancy in pretty much all mammals and humans. We gained the ability to keep it on because we evolved. If you don't understand such a simple concept then there is no possible way we can continue arguing

Also, please explain and refute all other pointsz especially the ones related to our teeth ( I have a degree in dentistry). I'll be waiting.

originally posted by: JameSimon

Wrong. The gene turns off after infancy in pretty much all mammals and humans. We gained the ability to keep it on because we evolved. If you don't understand such a simple concept then there is no possible way we can continue arguing

You contradict yourself in your own statement. A "gene turning off" is an epigenetic mechanism, yet you say my statement about the involvement of epigenetics was wrong. The lactase gene is turned on or off by epigenetic mechanisms.

They figured it was due to SNPs, but there are many populations of humans that defy any sort of predictability based on these varying alleles. So more intuitively, it is epigenetics that are integral to lactase persistence, as demonstrated by this article:

"This study reveals that epigenetic factors are involved in the regulation of the human and mouse lactase genes, and by corollary lactase non-persistence and related lactose intolerance... Indeed, epigenetic modifications targeting several different regulatory elements account for species- and tissue- specific effects as well as the inter-individual variation of Lactase expression." Source

a reply to: cooperton

Only evolution could allow a gene to switch off an on. Please address everything else I said (and that you so carefully choose to ignore).

By the way, I'm calling you a liar on "yet you say my statement about the involvement of epigenetics was wrong"

I didn't say such thing, so please refrain from making personal statements when the only argument you have is to distort the message.

originally posted by: JameSimon
a reply to: cooperton

Only evolution could allow a gene to switch off an on.

The good ol' evolution gods haha. But no it is not evolution. Turning genes on and off is epigenetic. Epigenetic alterations occur within the lifetime of an organism.

Please address everything else I said (and that you so carefully choose to ignore).

I am going one at a time, you still seem to stubbornly think evolution is responsible for epigenetic mechanisms.

originally posted by: JameSimon

I didn't say such thing, so please refrain from making personal statements when the only argument you have is to distort the message.

Your blanket statement was "wrong", and my claim was the involvement of epigenetics. I stand by what I said.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: JameSimon
14to 5 000 years we've gained Lactose persistence (ability to drink milk) in several groups. Not once, but three different times (different groups)

originally posted by: peter vlar
a reply to: Noinden

Don’t forget that while humans developed the lactase persistence snpj, the cattle they had been herding started producing milk that was easier for adults to digest it.

You guys are making up stories. ALL humans can digest lactose, otherwise they wouldn't have made it past infancy. Lactase persistence is an epigenetic phenonemon in which the lactase gene remains turned on. There was no evolution required.

" Epigenetically-controlled regulatory elements were found to account for the differences in lactase mRNA levels between individuals, intestinal cell types and species" Article (2016)

I'm guessing that,you're only glossing over information that you think supports your 'epigenetics dismisses the MES' argument because the paper only says that epigenetics turns off the genes at toddlerhood. It also says that it was a mutation that allows for lactase persistence. You have no clue what your ranting about and are grasping at any possible straw to attempt to be dismissive of evolutionary biology. As I linked above, it's a genetic mutation, an SNP...single nucleotide polymorphism that changed several thousand years ago.

originally posted by: peter vlar
In the photo that you think makes everything irrelevant, there are the remains of nearly every anatomical feature of H. Naledi.

So that is the best actual collection of "H. Naledi"? It appears the missing link is missing most of its skull and hip bone.


What missing link? You're the only one rambling on about missing links which betrays you're scientific willful ignorance and demonstrates your religious persecution of science that you choose not to believe in. It doesn't get more ignorant than that and it's pathetic. Again, I told you who to contact and where he taught and did research. Please, send Lee Berger or John hawkers at U of Wisconsin an email with your thoughts and then post their replies for us. I didn't work on the Rising Star Cave dig and Lee Berger and John Hawkes are far more qualified than I am to discuss the whys and hows. As for the remains that you find dubious, you don't need the entire pelvis to know how it worked. A simple A&P 201 will explain it to you. See, we can easily take cues from other anatomical components to draw a more complete picture. The angle and size of the acetabulum (head of the femur since I doubt you know) tells us just as much about the pelvis as a complete pelvis does. Just like the angle of the foremen magnum can tell us if a creature is bipedal or not without the spine or post cranial remains.

a reply to: cooperton

No, you don't understand what I said neighbour.

Lactose persistence. In that, past weening, you can still digest lactose. Not all humans can do that. Further to that, not all humans can digest lactose, lactose intollerance can be a mutation, where from birth, a child can not digest milk.

Thus, it may be shown, that you do not read the science.