Comparison of reporting fossil discover: Science vs. Fundi Creationism

[shunyadragon]

How science reports and describes a fossil discovery gives interesting insight in Creationism Yellow Journalism.

How does science report the discovery;

Chinese fossil sheds light on mysterious Neanderthal kin
By Associated Press

May 1, 2019 | 4:42pm


Enlarge Image

The right half of the Xiahe mandible, found in 1980 in the Baishiya Karst Cave in the Gansu province of China.AP
MORE ON:

Until now, the only known remains of these Denisovans were a few scraps of bone and teeth recovered in a Siberian cave. DNA from those Siberian fossils showed kinship with Neanderthals. But the remains disclosed little else.

The new discovery was made roughly 1,400 miles (2,300 kilometers) to the southeast in Gansu province of China. The right half of a jawbone with teeth is at least 160,000 years old, scientists reported Wednesday in the journal Nature. No DNA could be found, but scientists recovered protein fragments that they compared to the Siberian DNA. That showed the fossil came from a Denisovan.

The find addresses several mysteries. One was why the Siberian DNA indicated Denisovans were adapted to living at high altitudes when the Siberian cave is relatively close to sea level. The Chinese cave, by contrast, is on the high-altitude Tibetan Plateau, about 10,800 feet high.

“Now we have an explanation,” said Jean-Jacques Hublin of the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig, Germany, one of the paper’s authors.

‘The method potentially tells us a whole new way of looking at fossils.’

In fact, “it’s a big surprise” that any human relative could live in the cold climate and thin air of the plateau at that time, more than 100,000 years before our own species showed up there, he told reporters.

Previous research had indicated that Denisovans must have lived somewhere other than Siberia, because traces of their DNA can be found in several present-day populations of Asia and Australia whose ancestors probably didn’t pass through that region. The new finding expands their known range, although Hublin said it’s still not clear where Denisovans first appeared. They are named for Siberia’s Denisova cave, where the remains were found."

Next, how do the Fundi Creationists report the fossil find.

 

[shunyadragon]

How do the Fundi Creationists and ID proponents report the same fossil find.

From: A toothache for Darwinists
A toothache for Darwinists
SCIENCE | Fossil find complicates theory of human evolution
by Julie Borg
Posted 8/01/19, 01:46 pm
Analysis of an ancient human tooth just took one more bite out of the evolutionary narrative. The discovery adds to an increasing body of scientific evidence suggesting that Neanderthals, Denisovans, and modern humans belong to one species. Though it throws a wrench into the theory that humans descended from archaic subspecies that migrated out of Africa, it fits quite well into the Biblical narrative.

The tooth, discovered in the Baishiya Karst Cave in Xiahe, China, nearly 40 years ago, is a three-rooted, lower second molar that evolutionary scientists say dates to 160,000 years ago, much older than the researchers expected. Scientists previously thought the three-rooted molar evolved in Asians long after Homo sapiens dispersed from Africa. Today, three-rooted molars appear in 40 percent of the Asian population but are quite rare otherwise, occurring in less than 3.5 percent of non-Asian individuals.

The new analysis, which appeared last week in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, identified the specimen as a Denisovan tooth. Evolutionary scientists believe the Denisovan is an extinct archaic human and sister species to the Neanderthals. The presence of a three-rooted tooth in the older Denisovan specimen contradicts the idea that Homo sapiens developed the trait later on their own. It is more likely, the researchers said, that Denisovans interbred with Homo sapiens. And where there is interbreeding, there is a strong case that the two species are actually the same.

The discovery that Denisovans likely interbred with modern humans shows “the Denisovans and modern Chinese are the same species, as are the Neanderthals and modern man!” Jerry Bergman, a medical doctor, science professor, and author, wrote on Creation Evolution Headlines.

The Bible says that after the Genesis flood, people dispersed out from Babel, and groups of humans became isolated. The isolation limited genetic variability and produced people groups like the Neanderthals and Denisovans, Elizabeth Mitchell wrote in an article for Answers in Genesis.

“All those descended from Noah’s family—the only people to survive the flood—supplied the gene pool we see today, unmixed with ape or any sort of transitional subhuman,” she said.

The fact that scientists can now track the genetic presence of Neanderthals and Denisovans around the globe testifies to the fact that they, and all other people, are related. There is also mounting evidence that dispersal patterns do not support evolutionary emergence from Africa.

 

[ChristineM]

Ill take the scientific report

 

[Skwim]

Ill take the scientific report

I'll second that.

.

 

[shunyadragon]

Ill take the scientific report

Note carefully the difference in the attitude toward the discovery of new fossils.

Science views each discovery as new information to be incorporated in the science of evolution. Sometimes the role of the fossil at the time may be inconclusive, but nonetheless over time the new discoveries are incorporated into the evidence of the science of evolution with other new discoveries. Some fossils are put on the shelf as unknown over the as is past 100 years or more, but recently modern methodology has evaluated old fossils and understand them in the light of recent discoveries.

Over the years the Creationists consider each new discovery as negative evidence that over turns evolution, or makes evolution unlikely, but this fades with time as they pounce on each new discovery as evidence to disprove evolution, but these too pass as more nonsense.

 

[ChristineM]

Note carefully the difference in the attitude toward the discovery of new fossils.

Science views each discovery as new information to be incorporated in the science of evolution. Sometimes the role of the fossil at the time may be inconclusive, but nonetheless over time the new discoveries are incorporated into the evidence of the science of evolution with other new discoveries. Some fossils are put on the shelf as unknown over the as is past 100 years or more, but recently modern methodology has evaluated old fossils and understand them in the light of recent discoveries.

Over the years the Creationists consider each new discovery as negative evidence that over turns evolution, or makes evolution unlikely, but this fades with time as they pounce on each new discovery as evidence to disprove evolution, but these too pass as more nonsense.

Science doing what science does, and creationists doing what creationists do.