SailingCyclops wrote: otseng wrote: Let’s look at the art from your source. It claims “The oldest known art of prehistory. A cupule at the Auditorium Cave at Bhimbetka, Madhya Pradesh, India. It dates from (290,000-700,000 BCE).” It is disputable that this would be considered art, or even made from man. Not disputed actually. Cupules From …
Let’s start discussing the stone artifacts (tools). Oldowan The Oldowan is significant for being the earliest stone tool industry in prehistory, being used from 2.6 million years ago up until 1.7 million years ago, when it was followed by the more sophisticated Acheulean industry. Oldowan tools were therefore the earliest tools in human history, and …
One interesting thing is that dispersion of humans from mtDNA data and Y chromosome data is similar. Yet, mtEve and yAdam span a difference of up to 100,000 years apart. From what I can tell, evolutionary theory does not predict that the migration patterns would be similar. Yet, this would logically follow from the Human …
SailingCyclops wrote: The broader question is when did art itself become manifest? There is much evidence that it began between 300,000 and 700,000 years ago. When Was Art First Created? According to the latest paleo-archeological information, the oldest art was created by humans during the prehistoric Stone Age, between 300,000 and 700,000 years ago. Let’s …
nygreenguy wrote: otseng wrote: I normally try to address posts in sequence, otherwise I’m going to lose track of things. But this one is such a fundamental issue that it deserves immediate attention. What exactly do you mean by “there is no such thing as human evolutionary theory”? So, this may just be semantics, but …
Grumpy wrote: And only creationists separate evolution into micro and macro. There is no difference, there is only evolution. The terms were coined by Yuri Filipchenko. And I have not seen any evidence that he was a creationist. Russian entomologist Yuri Filipchenko first coined the terms “macroevolution” and “microevolution” in 1927 in his German language …
nygreenguy wrote: otseng wrote:If we are to only go by what has been observed, then we can also rule out macroevolution. Macroevolution would only be an extrapolation of microevolution, not something that we can observe. Fossils are observation. Observation isnt just limited to guys in labs wearing white coats. I didn’t say fossils are unobservable. …
nygreenguy wrote: If we were indeed created in the image of god, we shouldnt start off as using sticks and stones and drawing on walls. Let’s explore the concept of cavemen and drawings on cave walls. “Cavemen are portrayed as wearing shaggy animal hides, armed with rocks or cattle bone clubs, unintelligent, and aggressive.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caveman …
Abraxas wrote: otseng wrote: You tell me. Does human evolutionary theory posit that humans arose from one couple? No. Evolution works on populations. Then you reject these findings? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Y-chromosomal_Adam http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve As noted, these two were not a couple and in fact lived over a hundred thousand years apart. It would make more sense if it …
McCulloch wrote: otseng wrote: And this confirms the prediction that there is more genetic diversity in females than males. Did I miss something? Has it been established that there is more genetic diversity in human females than in males? What does this mean? It is referring to the time of the flood as I first …