The Real Science Radio Caveman Show

Jefferson

Administrator
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
The Real Science Radio Caveman Show

This is the show from Friday, May 25th 2012.

SUMMARY:



* DNA Doesn't Lie! Neanderthals were MAN
: Now that geneticists have sequenced the entire Neanderthal genome, they have proved wrong many of the world's leading evolutionists who had long claimed that Neanderthals were not Homo sapiens. The young age of the earth, and that life had to be specially created because it is information based, prove that Man was specially created and that there never was such a thing as an ape/human ancestor. Now, DNA proves that Neanderthal men and women were fully man, that is, they were Homo sapiens, because genetically they are closer to modern humans than two living chimps of the same species are to one another!

* Answers in Genesis Keeping RSR Informed: The current edition of the flagship publication of Ken Ham's Answers in Genesis presents a great series of caveman articles by David Menton, John UpChurch, Andrew Snelling, Mike Matthews, and Georgia Purdom, including as Purdom writes, "two modern chimps of the same species will have more DNA variation than Neanderthals or Denisovans have to modern humans." Taking the lead from Answers, RSR co-hosts Bob Enyart (above left) and Fred Williams (right) put themselves in a caveman's moccasins :) to figure out why Neanderthal (and others) lived in caves and why they looked so different. RSR believes that "Homo erectus", Neanderthal, etc., lived in caves only temporarily, to escape bad weather, etc., and they looked so different only because of ethnic differences which were often exaggerated by longevity.



* Preemptively Correcting Evolutionists
: Invariably, when evolutionists get proven wrong on a major prediction, even one in print for decades, atheist and other Darwinist listeners to RSR will claim, "Evolutionists never said such a thing." Even before our RSR Caveman program aired, the guys told an evolutionist about the Neanderthal sequencing, who replied, "Evolutionists never claimed that Neanderthals were a difference species." So, to the evolutionists who post at EvolutionFairytale.com and at the BEL forum at TheologyOnline.com, before you accuse someone of making an error, it would help if you fact checked your own claim. Preemptively today, Bob Enyart's 12-year-old son Michael found this 1995 book and checked it out of his local public library, The Last Neanderthal, a book sponsored by the American Museum of Natural History. The author, paleoanthropologist Ian Tattersall, described as "one of the most respected authorities on the subject," claimed that the word "'human' is extremely ill-defined," and that, "As used here, 'human' ... is more lossely employed to refer to all primates that share a common ancestry uniquely with us, from Australopithecus on." This is science by definition. It reminds us of the evolutionists who argue that we should simply "define" various domestic dog breeds as different species. Thus, like magic, by science by definition they can then prove that speciation occurs commonly. Viola! On classification, Tattersall went on to say that, "in my view and that of a growing number of colleagues, there is no good reason to doubt that the Neanderthals deserve recognition as a species of there own." Except that they were not. And DNA doesn't lie. So Tattersall knew of no good reason, that is, other than that creationists disagreed with him. And since creationists have a better track record regarding scientific predictions, on those grounds alone Tattersall should have been more cautious. For then, he wouldn't have been falsified just a few years later on yet another major prediction from Darwinists.

* Also Discussed on Today's RSR Program: "Cavemen" called Homo erectus, Cro-magnon man, Homo floresiensis (hobbits), and Denisovans. Also, from a great article by Buddy Davis, the guys discuss bloodhounds and they describe the difficulty that evolution would face to evolve a sense of smell.

* "Cavemen" were Ice Age People: The Ice Age (singular) ended only a few thousand years ago. But how do you get an Ice Age to start? Old-earth geologists have an impossible time trying to create a scientifically reasonable computer simulation that shows how an Ice Age could begin, for two opposing factors are needed: cold continents and warm oceans. Dr. Walt Brown's Hydroplate theory very directly explains how the Ice Age began!

Today’s Resource: Get the greatest cell biology video ever made! (By buying it here, you'll also help keep Real Science Radio on the air, and you'll get Dr. Don Johnson's book as a bonus!) Learn how the common world view of life's origin, chemical evolution, conflicts with our knowledge of Information Science. Finally, information Science is changing the way millions of people think about all living systems! For after all, most fundamentally, rather than being carbon based, life in information based! (And have you browsed through our Science Department in the KGOV Store? You just might LOVE IT!!)

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Stripe

Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
:rotfl:

I thought that was Jukia and Chair in normal dress...
 

Bob Enyart

Deceased
Staff member
Administrator
Where did they get those costumes?

Hi Lighthouse! Thanks for asking. Disguises in Lakewood, Colorado. And Sheila, a DBC member (also a CSI from a local law enforcement agency) did the makeup and her husband John took the impromptu, unscripted (obviously :) video and Darrell took the photo. The background rocks are real. (I'm guessing that what is showing is part of the Morrison formation and the Dakota formation.) We were at Red Rocks park west of Denver in the foothills of the Rockies (on one of the hogbacks along C-470). A guy named Knight helped with a couple Photoshop edits by brightening up the sky and darkening Fred's animal skin :)

-Bob
 

Alate_One

Well-known member
* Also Discussed on Today's RSF Program: "Cavemen" called Homo erectus, Cro-magnon man, Homo floresiensis (hobbits), and Denisovans.

So Homo erectus is just a caveman now? Cause Bob said so?

I guess chimpanzees are just cavemen too . . . .

Shall we play one of these things is not like the other, again?
(one is a chimp one is H. erectus and the other is H. sapiens) Can you guess which one is which?

Homo.jpg
 

Flipper

New member
So I listened to the show and was interested to learn that, in Bob's view, Neanderthals are actually just H. sapiens.

In which case, I am sure he has a ready explanation for the following discovery:

The publication by Noonan et al. revealed Neanderthal DNA sequences matching chimpanzee DNA, but not modern human DNA, at multiple locations, thus enabling the first accurate calculation of the date of the most recent common ancestor of H. sapiens and H. neanderthalensis. The research team estimates the most recent common ancestor of their H. neanderthalensis samples and their H. sapiens reference sequence lived 706,000 years ago (divergence time), estimating the separation of the human and Neanderthal ancestral populations to 370,000 years ago (split time).[16]

Source
 

Lighthouse

The Dark Knight
Gold Subscriber
Hall of Fame
Hi Lighthouse! Thanks for asking. Disguises in Lakewood, Colorado. And Sheila, a DBC member (also a CSI from a local law enforcement agency) did the makeup and her husband John took the impromptu, unscripted (obviously :) video and Darrell took the photo. The background rocks are real. (I'm guessing that what is showing is part of the Morrison formation and the Dakota formation.) We were at Red Rocks park west of Denver in the foothills of the Rockies (on one of the hogbacks along C-470). A guy named Knight helped with a couple Photoshop edits by brightening up the sky and darkening Fred's animal skin :)

-Bob
Cool. I downloaded the video and will watch it soon. I'm currently listening to old clips from the KGOV archive.
 

The Barbarian

BANNED
Banned
There surely is a hint in the fact that early Neandertals looked more like modern humans than later ones. The genetic data seem to indicate that the Neandertals were isolated long enough to diverge into a new species, which still could interbreed with humans.
 

Stripe

Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
There surely is a hint in the fact that early Neandertals looked more like modern humans than later ones. The genetic data seem to indicate that the Neandertals were isolated long enough to diverge into a new species, which still could interbreed with humans.

Like the Australians?
 

Nick M

Plymouth Colonist
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
This also eliminates theories of the nephilim. I have read those a few times.
 

The Barbarian

BANNED
Banned
Barbarian observes:
There surely is a hint in the fact that early Neandertals looked more like modern humans than later ones. The genetic data seem to indicate that the Neandertals were isolated long enough to diverge into a new species, which still could interbreed with humans.

Like the Australians?

Much shorter time, so that they didn't even get to become a subspecies. About 40,000 years. And the cline never got completely shut down.

Neandertals were separated for a much longer time, and until anatomically modern people arrived from Africa, they didn't mix much.
 

One Eyed Jack

New member
There surely is a hint in the fact that early Neandertals looked more like modern humans than later ones. The genetic data seem to indicate that the Neandertals were isolated long enough to diverge into a new species, which still could interbreed with humans.

That doesn't exactly fit the definition of species. If they could still interbreed, they should be the same species. Like bottlenose dolphins and false killer whales (which are actually classified as different genera, despite the facts that not only can they interbreed, they can also produce fertile offspring in the process).

Classifying them as kinds (biologically related organisms descended from a common ancestor or group of ancestors) eliminates this problem.
 

Stripe

Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
"Species" is a vague and useless term. Evolutionists love it because it can be used to create the illusion of certainty for their vague and useless ideas. "Kind" is rock solid, well defined and meaningful. Evolutionists hate the term "kind".
 

Flipper

New member
So where can we find the definitive list of "kinds" then?

As of last year, such a thing was not yet available.
 

Stripe

Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
So where can we find the definitive list of "kinds" then?
Nice red herring.

The claim was not that it is easy to determine what organisms belong to what kind. The claim is that the term "kind" is well defined and rock solid. There are not multiplied observations that might be used to justify inclusion or exclusion as there is with "species". I once saw a paper that said a bird singing a different song might be speciation. :chuckle:

Try to come to terms with what it is you are so desperate cannot be so before railing against it. :thumb:
 

Granite

New member
Hall of Fame
It's typical of creationists to ignore facts and science when inconvenient and to twist what facts and science they barely understand to fit their agenda.

No, neanderthals were no homo sapiens. Regardless of what Bob or any othe creationist claims otherwise. This kind of ignorance is embarrassing. But shamelessness has always been a creationist staple. Saddles, meet Dino.
 

Flipper

New member
Nice red herring.

The claim was not that it is easy to determine what organisms belong to what kind. The claim is that the term "kind" is well defined and rock solid.

The term "unicorn" is also well defined and rock solid too, but that doesn't mean it has any utility in the real world. If you have been keeping up with the state of baraminology, you'd know that it's in disarray.

There are not multiplied observations that might be used to justify inclusion or exclusion as there is with "species". I once saw a paper that said a bird singing a different song might be speciation.

You think that's bad? Try looking for the comprehensive definition of a gene. Maybe you haven't realized it yet, but the further away you get from physics, the messier the real world gets.

I remember that paper, btw. As selection by characteristics other than geographical separation is a requirement of allopatric speciation, and as many birds rely on sexual selective characteristics such as plumage and song, whenever something changes enough to leave two separate populations that are separated by sexual selection, it may (note the term "may") be the start of a speciation event.

Biology isn't always as binary as your simplistic view of the world appears to think it should be, but them's the breaks.
 

Stripe

Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
The term "unicorn" is also well defined and rock solid too, but that doesn't mean it has any utility in the real world.
Nothing but straws to grasp at now, have you. :chuckle:

If you have been keeping up with the state of baraminology, you'd know that it's in disarray.
:yawn:

Get back to us when you're prepared with a rational set of points.

You think that's bad? Try looking for the comprehensive definition of a gene.
Nobody knows more than about a hundredth of 1% of how organisms were designed. It's not surprising that its elements are poorly parsed. Feel free to keep on the subject at hand. That is simple and easy to understand. :thumb:

Maybe you haven't realized it yet, but the further away you get from physics, the messier the real world gets.
"Kind" is a well defined and useful standard by which to classify organisms. "Species" allows evolutionists the latitude to put anything anywhere. And when it comes to people, the classifications are done according to certain politically correct requirements.

No evolutionist can rationally justify why neanderthals were a different species while, say, the Mbuti are not.

I remember that paper, btw. As selection by characteristics other than geographical separation is a requirement of allopatric speciation, and as many birds rely on sexual selective characteristics such as plumage and song, whenever something changes enough to leave two separate populations that are separated by sexual selection, it may (note the term "may") be the start of a speciation event.
See? Idiocy.

Biology isn't always as binary as your simplistic view of the world appears to think it should be, but them's the breaks.
Get back to us when you have a rational argument. :thumb:
 
Top