Paging Betteridge…
Is the Bible right? Yes. Is the biblical interpretation that a global flood happened wiping out all life including all people except a handful the correct interpretation correct? Probably. But is it supposed to be understood literally? Probably not. Seems like it’s written as a myth. If the flood story is supposed to be read as actually factual non hyperbolic history than the Bible is wrong. Just like it’s wrong about a flat earth and the sun revolving around earth.
The source paper…
A new ape from TĂĽrkiye and the radiation of late Miocene hominines
In answer to your question, only if you can push the flood back to 8.7 million years ago.
And based on the source paper these are not modern humans.
- Speaking of flat earth theory …
The link to the article was a bit surprising in connection with the flood of Noah.
The new fossil is far from modern humans both in time (8.7 million years) and morphology. It is a fossil ape that assumedly lived close to the era when increasingly human-like apes started to diverge from those that became ancestors of chimpanzees and gorillas.
If the ape Anadoluvius turkae were on Noah’s ark, there has happened terribly rapid evolution after the ark trip. In addition, chimpanzees and possibly also gorillas would be our recent relatives if our common ancestors were on the ark.
So you use science when it’s convenient and discard it when it disagrees with YEC. I get it. You’re cherrypicking evidence. Fancy move.
So for years, YEC writers complained about anthropologist reconstructions and how we didn’t have enough bones. Yet you cite a study where the pop news article summarizes:
This fossil includes most of the facial structure and the front part of the braincase
Very cool, but that’s it. Was it bipedal? We don’t know but given how hard YEC writers fight against Lucy’s species, I don’t think you care.
Noah’s descendants?
Anadoluvius was roughly the size of a large male chimpanzee, weighing between 50-60 kilograms.
If you propose that Noah wasn’t bipedal and was the size of a large male chimpanzee.
But I think this quote hits the nail on the head because this is how I was trained to read science headlines by YEC organizations I consumed for years:
Or in other words, this post, while a very interesting discovery, is an example of what @jammycakes notes:
I may make a slide for this discovery in my hominin fossils lecture though so I do appreciate you posting it @adamjedgar.
Oh no, I didn’t blaspheme the Almighty science god did I? We must not anger her and show her the proper sacrafices or the crops won’t come in this year.
Yeah, I don’t care about showing, “bad attitudes toward science.” Science is a tool for discovering more about the world, nothing more. What I did in my post was point out the elephant in the room, that he’s cherrypicking data and evidence. What I said was true and I am loathe to let such obvious dishonesty slide in discussions such as this.
It is sort of funny reading the headlines and then the articles on some of these sites and seeing the disconnect. And then you go to the source article and wonder how they ever made that connection! It happens all the time, and I suspect that Adam posted this tongue in cheek to see what the reaction would be. good job!
It does point out that the fossil record is very spotty, and we see only a small part of the amazing diversity of life and its history from the distant past. Whatever we find and propose, it is likely much more complicated than we can document. That is pretty much true of all of life’s little mysteries. One of the neat things about being on this site is the exposure to ideas and thoughts not only in science, but in theology ,religion, and literature that I would otherwise be unaware of if I stayed in my little bubble.
You know he quoted you and was agreeing with you right?
In the post he was mostly quoting and responding to Adam. Then he was saying that what you said hit the nail on the head, which just means was very accurate. You have to be accurate to hammer in a nail.
So after he disagreed with Adam, and agreed with what you said, he posted a link to something Jimmy stated elsewhere that he felt was relevant to the discussion. He’s saying Adam is expressing bad faith towards science by cherry picking data.
Always a good plan! My crops didn’t grow right this fall. Must not have done enough pipetting or confidence intervals this year!
My apologies though if you misunderstood, I was agreeing with you and not suggesting you had bad attitudes about science as @SkovandOfMitaze summarized here:
Except.Adam wasnt cherry picking anything…you just didnt read the quesrion or the article correctly.
The overwhelming point here that has not beej addressed…the location of evolution in THIS news article, the conclusion of the article writers (which have nothing to do with me)…africa was not the locstion of the earliest ancestors to humanity…its likely Europe…even Turkeye.
What is quite confronting about the news story is the notion that africa is not the starting placw for tue evolution of humanity…its likely around Turkeye.
My aim in presenting the above was to see if anyone actually realised who it was that wrote the “NEWS” article?
It seems to me from the repsonses that the dummies here just assumed its a YEC news site…it was not even a religious one🤣
What i have demonstrated here is that the TEists are equally as bad at allowing their hyperfocus on protecting the science god to make an ass of themselves and miss the entire connection.
Oh well…what has happened was expected…so theres that…at least one individual here was smart enough to realise what happemed.
Its about time some of you got back what.you.dish out.
You have thoroughly misunderstood the article. Nothing in it suggests that the earliest ancestors of humans evolved in Europe or that Europe was the starting place for the evolution of humanity. It’s suggesting (based on pretty spotty evidence) that one piece of the long chain of ancestors leading to humans occurred in Europe, rather than in Africa as many have (tentatively) thought. There were innumerable ancestors of humans before this fossil, no doubt in many parts of the world, and this fossil doesn’t represent anything anyone could confuse with a human.
Why you think this is of more than academic interest, I have no idea. Personally, I have very little interest in the details of early ape evolution, but no doubt some people find it fascinating.
Oh, I’m sorry. Yeah, I did misunderstand.
By my Sherlock level powers of deduction, I noted the URL was for earth.com, and the lead paragraph stated the location was 8.7 million years old. It was elementary that this was not a YEC site.
Did I foil your dastardly plot?
no obviously nothing in the article says that…although unless I’m not able to read English…note THE ARTICLE HEADLINE
Adam, have you ever heard of something called “clickbait”?
Rule number one of reading science journalism: you should NEVER assume that an article’s headline is an accurate summary of the article’s content.
Article headlines routinely exaggerate the significance of findings to try and drive traffic to their websites, because advertising. I’ve lost count of the number of times I’ve clicked on an interesting looking science headline only to find that it doesn’t say anything near as significant as what the headline suggested.
Going by headlines without paying proper attention to the content of the article and the sources on which the article is based is exactly the kind of thing I refer to when I talk about approaching science as an “ammunition gathering exercise.” It’s a recipe for misunderstanding things, quote mining, making wild unsubstantiated claims that have no basis in reality, and doing badly in your finals.
Does this mean you accept that this probably non-bipedal primate a little bigger than a male chimpanzee was a common ancestor to modern humans? That’s kind of what you are implying.