Re: [creat] Re: Creationist History of Egypt
--- On Wed, 1/28/09, rasfeqade <rasfeqade@...> wrote:
From: rasfeqade <rasfeqade@...>
Subject: [creat] Re: Creationist History of Egypt
Date: Wednesday, January 28, 2009, 1:36 PM
--- In creationism@ yahoogroups. com, John Tillman <mammot1h@.. .> wrote:
> > I've showed you that it's a typical skull for the region.
> Shown? You _asserted_ that it's a typical skull for the region, but
> you haven't convinced me of that at all. Linking a simple photo of a
> modern Egyptian would suffice.
> I linked you an analysis of a pharaonic skull compared to a modern
Nubian skull. It included pictures of people from the region. Why am
I not surprised that you didn't bother to click on it. Creationists
are allergic to evidence, I know, but it's just plain rude to ask for
something, then not look at it.
> I also provided a link stating that pharaohs' skulls were within
normal limits, just exactly as I told you. I see you're no different
from other fact & reason-averse creationists.
John, I apologize greatly for missing that link, but I am looking
through the message archive now and am still unable to find it. I
will certainly take a look, though; would you mind possibly please
linking it again, or maybe telling what message number it is? I did
not mean to be rude, and I will read what it says with an open mind,
since I am earnestly trying to understand.
Thanks. I should have suggested that you might have missed it. Of innumerable possible links, I used this simply as the first to come up on a search for "nilotic" & "pharaoh":
As I said, modern human heads show a number of characteristic features uniting us & distinguishing us from truly "archaic" ancestors & relatives, including, as with Ramesses II, lack of brow ridges & presence of a chin.
Many Egyptians & Sudanese, now & then, show dolichocephaly to various extents, which in some pharaoh dynasties was near the extreme of the normal range, perhaps, as suggested here, due to inbreeding. But there is nothing "archaic" about their skulls or heads, in the anthropological & paleontological sense of that term.
> Of course we're more or less as we were 3000 years ago. As I said,
we're still pretty much as we were 30,000 years ago, with smaller
teeth on average. At 300,000 years ago, there were as yet no
anatomically modern humans, who date from about 160 kya. At 3,000,000
years ago, there weren't even any members of our genus yet, although
taxonomists & paleontologists disagree on the labeling of our
ancestors alive then. Generally, the transition from Australopithecus
to Homo is considered to have occurred around 2.5 million years ago,
but the earliest Homo species look more like late Australopithecines
than like H. erectus or H. sapiens.
OK, so if the earliest Homo species look more like late
Australopithecines, then can we safely say the greatest change
occurred within the timeframe of Homo genus?
No. The evolution of modern humans has had periods of relative stasis & rapidity of change, showing both slow, gradual alteration & more sped up at different time, which is the usual way evolution works. The rate of natural selection depends on changing conditions, & stochastic process rely on reproductive isolation, along with other factors.
The evolution of hominids, ie African great apes who walk upright, appears to have been in response to the spread of grasslands east of the Rift Valley, which rose from about eight million years ago, along with generally drier, cooler conditions globally. Some argue that fusion of our chromosome Number 2 from two smaller standard ape chromosomes is associated with this development.
Freeing our hands led later to the evolution of larger brains, as stone tools allowed our ancestors access to more fat, from the marrow of big game animals' long bones, previously inaccessible. More fat allowed more grey matter. Australpithecines' brains were only about as big as chimps, whom they generally resembled, although of course with human-like legs & feet. H. habilis-grade early members of our genus were still small, but brain size increased from to around 750 cc on average. This development does appear to have happened relatively rapidly, around 2.5 million years ago.
H. erectus-grade humans were larger, quite like us in body. Their brains however expanded more gradually, from about 800 cc some 1.7 million years ago to 1200 cc by 500,000 years ago, ie within the range of moderns.
> The puzzle is imaginary, based upon a fundamental misunderstanding
of evolution & anthropology. I've tried to reply, but you don't seem
interested in my answers, only in your questions, even after they've
been answered. Please tell me exactly what strikes you as "archaic"
about the fully modern skulls of some pharaohs.
> BTW, here is what "archaic Homo sapiens" means to phys
anthropologists & paleontologists:
> http://en.wikipedia .org/wiki/ Archaic_Homo_ sapiens
Hmm, This is what I would agree is an "Archaic Homo sapiens" skull shape:
http://www.msu edu/~robin400/ sapiensarchaic. html
Yup, those are archaic H. sapiens skulls, alright. Note the still pronounced brow ridges, although less prominent than in H. erectus. Your link doesn't show the lower jaw, but chins are a distinguishing trait of anatomically modern humans. Your pharaoh has one as fully as do you or I. In fact more than I. Guess I'm a throwback, maybe with more Neanderthal ancestry than some Egyptian dynastic families.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
- My bad, I sure didn't say that very clearly. Not paying good enough attention. When I wrote "The subject header is wrong" I meant "The original subject header is wrong" and the header I was referring to was the one that stated "Evolution war rages 200 years". Which is why I changed it to "Anti-science war by religious fundamentalists rages 200 years".
- Todd Greene
--- In creationism, Todd S. Greene wrote (post #65637):
> The subject header is wrong.
> First of all, it was with geological science in the early 1800s that religious fundamentalists (and note that the specific term "fundamentalists" was not coined until the early 1900s, but I'm referring to the same kind of religious mentality, because I'm specifically NOT referring to mainstream Christianity) started their war. The Origin of Species was not even published until 1859 (i.e., 150 years ago as I write this). The "battles" rumbled along until from about 1925 until 1961 there was a gradual increase in fundamentalist attacks against science, at which time in 1961 fundamentalists began launching more organized attacks against science.
> Of course, this "war" has everything to do with certain people's religious beliefs, and actually nothing to do with science itself.
> Which is the point.
> - Todd Greene
> P.S.: And, yeah, Jack, what is it with your long-time incompetence with respect to leaving out the extraneous ">" characters from your posts?
> --- In email@example.com, "jacktogery" <jacktogery@> wrote:
> > --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "skrogh" <panterragroup@> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: email@example.com [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]On
> > > > Behalf Of jacktogery
> > > > Sent: Wednesday, May 06, 2009 11:18 AM
> > > > To: email@example.com
> > > > Subject: Re: [creat] Evolution war rages 200 yrs
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "Craig" <falsecut@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In email@example.com, "jacktogery" <jacktogery@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >Freedom, Dave! FREEDOM...........
> > > > > >
> > > > > To do what? Lie to yourself? To get taken in?
> > > > >
> > > > > How about the freedom, Jack, to learn how to post with out
> > > > leaving the little extra ">" in your posts? It's been years and
> > > > you still haven't figured that out.
> > > >
> > > > >You must chose your battle fields wisely.
> > >
> > >
> > > Which is Craig's comment and which is Jack's?
> > > The last comment is mine, sir.
> > JackT.