It’s more like Ah-ka-EE-keh
I get 17 syllables: Build-ing-a-mo-del / Too-ma-ny-va-ri-a-bles / Use A-ka-ee-keh
Ah-ka-EE-keh works. 17 is correct: 5+7+5
On the contrary, there are a lot of evidences that founder effect, isolation, inbreeding and restricted diets can cause pathological states, dwarfism and reductive selection, all things that can be associated with « primitive looking » features (I.e., heavy brow ridges, reduced chin, small brain, etc…). Here is a passage in Contested Bones that illustrates the point:
For example, Lee Berger attributed the primitive features seen in bones of a <3000-year-old small-bodied population of H. Sapiens from Palau (a pacific island) to « founder effects, genetic isolation and a high inbreeding coefficient… »
Can you explain why, for a period of hundreds of thousands of years, we only find thousands of examples of humans in these supposed “pathological states”, and never a single example of a healthy modern human? And why these “pathological states” produce exactly the sort of features that would be expected of transitional forms between humans and chimps? That’s quite an amazing set of coincidences there.
10 Likes
Yet Noah and his family somehow escaped these negative effects of the founder effect, isolation, inbreeding? How?
2 Likes
ID in a nutshell. The designer just happened to do things that look like evolution. What a coincidence.
2 Likes
This is not true, for they are evidences that modern humans co-existed with these so-called archaic human beings (Neanderthals, Naledi, Denisovians. Hobbits, etc…)
Except that we have DNA from these, and they are definitively outside of Homo sapiens. So they can’t be ‘pathological’ humans.
3 Likes
Dude what? 3000 year old fossils of Homo sapiens are somehow evidence that Homo sapiens coexisted with other species at times where no Homo sapiens fossils are found?
2 Likes
Please provide this “evidence” that modern H. sapiens co-existed with every single one of the examples listed at the site below. Thanks!
https://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/human-fossils/species?sort_by=field_age_timeline_maximum_value
1 Like
neanderthals were not humans?
Humm! As far as Neanderthals and Denisovians are concerned, we know for sure that they interbred with Homo Sapiens, and, as such, were the same species.
Here is what Swedish geneticist Svante Paabo, the world’s foremost authority on Neandethal DNA sequencing said about that:
The multiple instances of gene flow now documented among hominin groups show that modern humans were part of what could teem a « hominin metapopulation » - that is, a web of different hominin populations, including Neanderthals, Denisovians and other groups, who were linked by limited, but intermittent or even persistent, gene flow.
Or this, from Clive Finlayson, paleo-expert and Director of the Gibraltar Museum:
The irony is that the scientific community is going to have to come round to the acceptance that the Denisovans and the Neanderthals also belong to the species which we call Homo sapiens »
Bottom line. You cannot dismiss the hypothesis that some of the primitive traits found in some human populations may be due to some mix of pathological states, intense isolation, inbreeding, island dwarfism and reductive selection by invoking the fact that these populations were outside of Homo sapiens, for they were not.
You’re missing the point by a factor of 100 because we have proof that homo sapiens has been around for at least 300,000 years.
This one for example:
The bobcat is outside of the house cat species, so does that mean the bobcat is not a cat?
There are Homo erectus fossils that are millions of years old, and no modern human fossils are seen in those time frames. How do you explain this?
3 Likes
Please re-read my question and try to actually answer it, rather than evading.
2 Likes
It would be nice if you linked the necessary citations of the sources you get these quotes from, so that we can read then in their entirety.
1 Like
That’s the problem with creationism. You have to draw a line with humans on one side and apes on the other, and nobody can agree on where to put that line. The way the world really works, with common descent and all, means that any such line must be arbitrary and subjective. Neandertals might or might not be human depending on where you choose to put that line, if you really feel a need to have one. They weren’t Homo sapiens, if that helps.
Sorry, but different species can frequently interbreed. Ducks, for example, are notorious for hybridizing across genera. What counts is whether interbreeding is common enough for the populations to merge. Your borrowing of authority from people you refuse to believe on any other subject is not useful.
2 Likes
Am I not supposed to present evidences for what I said? I mean your question was partly irrelevant to my claim. This is why I’ve provided evidences only to the part that was relevant.