Meet Homo naledi? (OR Ken Ham's ancestors discovered?)

Current News and Links of interest

Moderator: News Editors

Re: Meet Homo naledi? (OR Ken Ham's ancestors discovered?)

Postby a_haworthroberts » Sun May 14, 2017 10:46 pm

a_haworthroberts wrote:Interesting: ... erent.html (Wood is a young earth creationist - who the more extreme lying YECs frequently appear to ignore or genuinely be ignorant of)

Know It All lying YEC Charlie Wolcott is ignoring or deliberately contradicting (without backing up his claim) Todd Wood:
This species of Homo lived at the same time as our species so might not be a 'missing link' in the traditional sense. Saying it is 'young' does not REMOTELY fit with traditional 'biblical timescales' however.
And then we get the pontificating Wolcott (he might not have seen the Wood article in question as Sorensen simply linked to Wood's site):
"There's actually no real evidence the two skull halves they have there belong to the same creature." Except that there is a WORLD of such evidence (it was outlined in the original 2015 papers for instance).
In the words of Wood - who appears to me more of a mathematician than I am: "I originally said it was incredibly unlikely to be more than one species for statistical reasons. I posted this comment on a private group on Facebook, and I thought it might help explain why the "multiple species" idea doesn't work:
I think it has not been "dealt with" in any formal way, mostly because there is no merit to the claim since it's very unlikely. Actually, we might "calculate" a rough probability. Let's assume there are 30 individuals in the cave, evenly divided between two species. Marchi et al. (2016) report 14 right femoral elements recovered during the first two Dinaledi excavations, all of which are very similar to one another morphologically and therefore from a single species. But a random sample of 14 from a selection of 30 right femurs should give 7 of one species and 7 of the other, all things being equal. Given 30 right femurs, there are 30!/(14!)(16!) = 145422675 possible combinations of 14 different femurs. Since there are 15 right femurs from one species, that means there are 15 ways of selecting just 14 of those femurs. So that means there is a probability of 15/145422675 or 1e-7 of randomly selecting 14 right femurs from the same species (without replacement) in a sample of 30 right femurs evenly split between species. And that's just the right femurs! It gets impossibly improbable when you realize you have the same improbability for every other identifiable skeletal element. It's just a ludicrous proposal." ... erent.html

PS at 12.08 am BST on 15 May:
Or maybe Wolcott was TRYING to suggest that the skulls from Dinaledi and Lesedi are somehow 'different'? Who knows. He provides NO evidence for whatever he is trying to claim regarding 'no real evidence'.
Posts: 7941
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom


Return to News and Links

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests