E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
msnbc.com
How did pre-humans like australopiths, shown at left in this illustration, make the transition to early members of the genus Homo, shown at right? Perhaps it happened more than once.
The discoverer of the famous "Lucy" fossil says fresh findings suggest that more than one ancient species made the transition to more humanlike forms in different parts of Africa.
Arizona State University paleoanthropologist Don Johanson shook up the scientific world in 1974 when he came across the traces of a 3.2 million-year-old skeleton in Ethiopia, a pre-human ancestor that came to be called Lucy. A similar shake-up may well be in the works due to the detailed analysis of another set of 1.977 million-year-old bones found in South Africa.
In a series of studies published this week in the journal Science, researchers make a strong case that the bones, ascribed to a species called Australopithecus sediba, illustrate how the bodies of humanlike primates became more suited for upright walking, tool-making — and bigger brains.
The international research team, led by the University of Witwatersrand's Lee Berger, says A. sediba is a good representative of the type of creature leading to the emergence of the genus Homo, which includes us Homo sapiens types as well as Neanderthals and a host of other now-extinct species.
Courtesy of Donald Johanson
Anthropologist Don Johanson holds a cast of the skull of Lucy, one of the world's best-known hominid fossils.
But Johanson told me today that few of the reports about the latest findings touch on "the real crux of the matter." Even though A. sediba is a transitional form, with features of Australopithecus as well as Homo, he said there are other specimens of the genus Homo in eastern Africa that have been dated to roughly the same time. "There is a diversity of Homo already at 1.8 million years," he said.
In fact, at least one of the fossil bones traditionally ascribed to Homo — an upper jaw from the same area of Ethiopia where Lucy was found — has been dated to an age of 2.3 million years, Johanson said. He sees that as a sign that some primates in east Africa had completed the transition to Homo while others in southern Africa were still in the midst of that transition.
"Right after 3 million years toward the present, we see that there is a response in eastern and southern Africa which are on two different evolutionary trajectories," Johanson said. One trajectory led to grass-eaters such as Paranthropus robustus and Paranthropus boisei, and the other trajectory led to bigger-brained species such as Homo ergaster, Homo rudolfensis and Homo habilis. He said Homo habilis appears to have existed in east Africa at the same time that australopiths in southern Africa were becoming more Homo-like.
Courtesy of Lee Berger
Anthropologist Lee Berger holds the cranium of Australopithecus sediba.
"For the very first time, we've found the roots of Homo in south Africa, but it's too late to be the roots of Homo in east Africa," Johanson said.
During a teleconference, Berger said it can be difficult to tease out the relationships between the various species along the evolutionary path leading to modern humans.
"We're dealing with a period between, say, 2.3 million years and 1.6 milion years where the entire remainder of the fossil record could fit into a small shoebox, as opposed to these very well-preserved skeletons," Berger said. But he insisted that A. sediba "may very well be as good a model or better than the Homo habilis one, which actually only has a larger brain to go with it." He pointed out that our knowledge about Homo habilis was based on "very fragmentary fossils."
Darryl de Ruiter, an anthropologist at Texas A&M University who is part of Berger's team, said researchers considered whether A. sediba represented nothing more than an evolutionary dead end. "But as we pointed out, and as all these papers are demonstrating, in every aspect of the skeleton — cranium, teeth, jaw, mandibles, hand, pelvis, foot, everything that we look at — we see characteristics that align this species more closely with Homo than any other australopith," he said.
When the discovery of the A. sediba fossils was announced last year, Johanson speculated that the species might be more appropriately considered a part of the genus Homo than the genus Australopithecus. "I've actually changed my view," Johanson said. Now he agrees with Berger's team that it's an australopith. And who knows? Anthropologists may well change their minds many times as more fossils come to light.
In any case, Johanson said, this week's revelations are "very, very interesting."
"It does show that there are probably different ways of being an upright walker, and there are different ways of arranging the anatomy," he said. "There isn't just one strict way."
More about human evolution:
- Humans had sex with now-extinct relatives
- Fossils suggest Lucy's species used stone tools
- Lessons still being learned from Lucy
- Search for human evolution on msnbc.com
Connect with the Cosmic Log community by "liking" the log's Facebook page, following @b0yle on Twitter or adding me to your Google+ circle. You can also check out "The Case for Pluto," my book about the controversial dwarf planet and the search for other worlds.
Leave a Comment:
We killed each other 2 million years ago. We kill each other now. I don't see any advance at all.
My husband is a biology teacher. He knows Darwin's theory inside and out. We are Christian and for years he struggled with the meshing of his "education" and his "faith". The fact of the matter is that any "scientist" who claims to be "Christian" (believing in Creationism) is poo-pooed out of any mainstream University. That doesn't mean they're aren't brilliant biologists out there who can disprove the theory of evolution with scientific facts. (I am not one of them)
Keep in mind that the "THEORY" of evolution is just that...a theory. Darwin himself even contended that if ANY of his theory was proven incorrect the WHOLE theory fell apart. He also waited years to release his data because he was that unsure of the information he had gathered...only then releasing it because someone else was going to and get all the credit...(typical).
Mutation and genetically modified and evolution are NOT the same thing. Carbon dating has been disproved many, many times...it is inaccurate and unreliable. Therefore, carbon dating Lucy is unreliable as well.
Wanna go deeper? I would recommend you read the book "The Evolution of a Creationist" by Dr. Jobe Martin. Also, check out the Creation Museum in Petersburg KY...or Google "Ken Ham." Educate yourselves on the other side of the issue before you cast it aside because our "Leaders" have led us all to believe something contrary to the truth...(not like that hasn't happened before) Just the fact that they mandate the inclusion of teaching evolution to our kids should say somethin...they don't mandate the inclusion of comparative theories/religions...too bad understanding other peoples views could solve alot of worldly problems.
You all may call it "blind faith" but I contend that it is not blind faith. Some of us have educated ourselves to believe differently than you do...it's a free country right?
If I am wrong I have lost nothing...if evolutionists are wrong they have lost everything...still it is a choice. I will walk by faith...even when I cannot see.
"Educate yourselves on the other side of the issue before you cast it aside"
Julie, I have been studying evolution for 30 years, and Ihave heard all of the creationists arguments, including yours. Most of whay you are saying is flat wrong, and some of it doesn;t even make sense.
"Some of us have educated ourselves to believe differently than you do...it's a free country right?"
You have every right to your own beliefs and your own opinions. But not your own facts.
I disagree. Even if they were wrong, they would have tried in good 'faith' to explain the issue of biological diversity in the way that seems most plausible to them. So what 'everything' have they lost?
Jobe Martin is a theologian, not a scientist. His book is meaningless from a scientific perspective. It's a religious book, not a scientific one. It means nothing.
The Creation "Museum" is a building full of junk science. It, too, is a religious shrine, not an institute of scientific discovery.
Julie, Darwin's book was published in 1859. You might want to read up on MODERN evolutionary theory. Walk by faith if you wish, that is your choice. Some of us walk by facts, not faith.
Carbon Dating has been disproved? By whom? It has never been proven to be unreliable. Only books in the Christian "book" stores make this claim. I have no problem with people having their religions and other superstitions, but please don't insult us by calling it "science". It's a belief, nothing more. Actual science requires publicly verifiable FACTS.
If your husband tried to mesh his "faith" with his "education" and the faith won, then that is unfortunate. I certainly would hope that he would have actually paid attention in school. I feel sorry for the children he's teaching his twisted version of biology to, they're getting short-changed on their education.
" Darwin himself even contended that if ANY of his theory was proven incorrect the WHOLE theory fell apart. "
And he was right. (well, if any CRITCAL part of the theory..) That's how science works. But the theory has been tested to death for 150 years and has never failed yet.
"Mutation and genetically modified and evolution are NOT the same thing. "
Yes they are. Please try to learn about things before you deny them. Otherwise it really does sound like "blind" faith.
Oh, Julie, I googled Ken Ham...this is from Wikipedia...
"Kenneth Alfred Ham (born 20 October 1951) is the Australian President/CEO of Answers in Genesis USA.[1] He is a vocal advocate for a young Earth and a literal interpretation of the Book of Genesis,[2] and his cross-country speaking tours and many books make him one of the better known young-Earth creationists."
Again, theology, not science. *yawn*
Go back to church and let the grownups talk, please.
Julie, you can start by eduating yourself to the fact that radio carbon dating is reliable to 10's of thousands of years. Not millions.
So Tristan...if you'd do your own research instead of using wikipedia (which high school students are not even allowed to use because it is inaccurate and irrelivant) you'd find that Ken Ham has a bachelors degree in guess what....you guessed it biology!
You discredit scientists just because of their beliefs in creation? I would challenge you to consider:
The MRI scanner was developed by the creationist Dr. Raymond Damadian Dr. John Baumgardner, a Ph.D. geophysicist and biblical creationist, has a model of catastrophic plate tectonics, which the journal Nature once featured (this model is based on the global Genesis Flood). Dr. Russ Humphreys, a Ph.D. nuclear physicist who has developed (among many other things) a model to compute the present strength of planetary magnetic fields4 which was able to predict the field strengths of the outer planets. Did a belief in the Bible hinder his research? Not at all. Isaac Newton, who co-discovered calculus, formulated the laws of motion and gravity, computed the nature of planetary orbits, invented the reflecting telescope and made a number of discoveries in optics. Johannes Kepler, who discovered the three laws of planetary motion, or James Clerk Maxwell who discovered the four fundamental equations that light and all forms of electromagnetic radiation obey. These great scientists believed the Bible. Ph.D. cell biologist (and creationist) Dr. David Menton, who speaks at many conferences, has stated, “The fact is that, though widely believed, evolution contributes nothing to our understanding of empirical science and thus plays no essential role in biomedical research or education.”
So you say:
"If your husband tried to mesh his "faith" with his "education" and the faith won, then that is unfortunate. I certainly would hope that he would have actually paid attention in school. I feel sorry for the children he's teaching his twisted version of biology to, they're getting short-changed on their education."
To which I strongly disagree...as a parent I would applaud any teacher who would teach my child thoroughly and allow them to make up their own darn minds. I don't want them to blindly follow what the secular world is teaching....and I don't homeschool just for the record.
Dr. Jason Lisle says it very well when he states: Clearly, creationists can indeed be real scientists. And this shouldn’t be surprising since the very basis for scientific research is biblical creation. The universe is orderly because its Creator is logical and has imposed order on the universe. God created our minds and gave us the ability and curiosity to study the universe. Furthermore, we can trust that the universe will obey the same physics tomorrow as it does today because God is consistent. This is why science is possible.
Oh, and do try to be nice when you respond...another thing we Christians believe in...kindness. =)
Julie: "you'd find that Ken Ham has a bachelors degree in guess what"
You can't be a professional scientist with just a bachelor's degree.
And obviously you can study and contribute to all sorts of branches of science without accepting evolution. But not really in biology. You can describe things in biology without evolution, but you can't explain them. Evolution is the underlying principle that makes sense out of it all. It is fundamental.
Mike,
Carbon Dating presupposes (1) that C-14 decayed in the past as it does today; (2) that the C-14 in the atmosphere of the past was the same as today; (3) that the system is uncontaminated; (4) the laws of probability; and (5) the equivalence of C-14 atoms, as well as the more abstract presuppositions listed above—induction, reliability of the senses, and so on.
By the way, carbon dating provides powerful confirmation of the biblical timescale. Scientists have found C-14 in coal and diamonds that are supposedly millions of years old (or over a billion years old for the diamonds) in the evolutionary view. But C-14 has a half life of around 5,700 years—it decays to the point that it can’t be detected before even one million years have passed. Do you suppose that evolutionists are convinced by such evidence that the earth really is just a few thousand years old as the Bible teaches? Or do they simply dismiss such evidence and assume that there must be some sort of contamination (despite the lack of evidence of contamination) simply because of their presupposition that the earth is billions of years old or dismiss the credibility of the scientists involved without really addressing the issue at hand?
Julie: "Just the fact that they mandate the inclusion of teaching evolution to our kids should say somethin..."
Yes, it says we want our kids to learn what science tells us, and hopefully HOW science tells us.
" (3) that the system is uncontaminated;"
Yes, and then below you say that evolutionists can't use that explanation, whereas creationists can.
The assumptions of carbon dating are well known, and scientists are expected to address them when reporting any date. Otherwise other scientists will gleefully call them on it. But carbon dating is not used for ANY evolutionary research, so the argument is kind of pointless anyway.
Tristan...here is what wikipedia left out about Dr.Martin
Dr. Jobe Martin was originally a proponent of Darwinian Evolution. For the last twenty years, he has been actively involved in the issue of Divine Creation vs. Evolution. [1] He is a local to Bloomsburg, Pennsylvania. He attended Bucknell University and was a Biology Major. He graduated from the University of Pittsburgh Dental School in 1966. Entering into his own private dental practice, he began working at NASA in Houston, Texas. In 1971, Dr. Martin and his family moved to Dallas, having accepted a teaching position at Baylor College of Dentistry. [2]
While teaching at Baylor College, some of his students challenged him to find credible proof that the Theory of Evolution was accurate in its explanation of the origin of the earth and its organisms. While researching the subject, he came across many inconsistencies in the theory, concerning creatures that could not have survived gradual evolution over millions of years, especially the Bombardier Beetle. You can learn more about his research of this beetle and other such animals from a video series that he produced called Incredible Creatures that Defy Evolution.
These personal discoveries caused Dr. Martin to doubt the Theory of Evolution and eventually turn completely from a steadfast Darwinian supporter to a Creationist with his own faith in Christ. In 1982 he enrolled in Dallas Theological Seminary. He earned a Masters of Theology, specializing in Systematic Theology in 1986. Also while in Dallas, he earned and Associates Degree in Business, from Eastfield Community College. Dr. Martin has written a book on his change in worldviews called The Evolution of a Creationist.
Taken from creationwiki.org
Jack if I led you to think that creationists could not use the "uncontaminated system" as an excuse then I should be more clear.
Carbon Dating itself presupposes that the system is uncontaminated, but that is neither here nor there as the half life of C-14 is 5700 years. This was in response to Mike's suggestion that I educate myself as to the fact that it is accurate to tens of thousands of years rather than millions.
" credible proof that the Theory of Evolution was accurate in its explanation of the origin of the earth and its organisms."
Evolution isn't about those things, so no wonder he didn't find any?
Now what about the other hundreds of thousands of biologist around the world who accept evolution as obvious?
Julie, recognition of evolution is not some kind of "close call" that can go either way. The scientific evidence for evolution is stunningly broad and deep. So overwhelming that it is almost impossible to imagine any other explanation. What's more, for people aware of all the evidence, evolution is OBVIOUS.
"but that is neither here nor there as the half life of C-14 is 5700 years."
Which is why it is not used in any research on evolution. Carbon dating is mostly an archaeologists' tool, and an indispensible one.
Julie, if you would like to learn about the dating methods that ARE used for fossils, I would urge you to look at this excellent essay by a PhD physicist who also happens to be a devout Christian: http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/wiens.html
"Radiometric Dating, A Christian Perspective: the process of determining the age of rocks from the decay of their radioactive elements--has been in widespread use for over half a century. There are over forty such techniques, each using a different radioactive element or a different way of measuring them. It has become increasingly clear that these radiometric dating techniques agree with each other and as a whole, present a coherent picture in which the Earth was created a very long time ago. Further evidence comes from the complete agreement between radiometric dates and other dating methods such as counting tree rings or glacier ice core layers. Many Christians have been led to distrust radiometric dating and are completely unaware of the great number of laboratory measurements that have shown these methods to be consistent. Many are also unaware that Bible-believing Christians are among those actively involved in radiometric dating."
Julie: "Darwin also waited years to release his data because he was that unsure of the information he had gathered.."
That's totally untrue. He was pretty sure he was right. He waited years partly because he didn't look forward to all the flack he knew he was going to get, partly because he thought it would upset his wife, and partly because he was just a procrastinator.
And by the way. Evolution is not "Darwin's theory." It has come a long way in the 150 years since then.
"recognition of evolution is not some kind of "close call" that can go either way. The scientific evidence for evolution is stunningly broad and deep"
I would agree that Micro-evolution is true and occurring, however I would not agree that Macro-evolution occurs now or ever. Our textbooks in secular environments are filled with examples of Micro-evolution that are meant to substantiate the existance of Macro-evolution...show me one "tree" of apes that is in the process of evolving into a human...why would we assume that this has occured for millions of years and then stopped when we got here? Sure, animals that are exposed to environmental variables will develop traits to help them in their environment (micro-evolution) ie...dogs would develop thicker coats in a cold environment over time....but they are only utilizing genes that are already present and merely shuffling them until they eventually develop a dominant gene for thicker hair....which they would then pass on to their offspring...for generations to come. However these dogs did not produce any new genetic information.
The evolution we are asked to believe (and that there is no evidence of) is Macro-evolution. It supposedly occurs over millions of years and produces new genetic information...ie...chimp to human. There is no evidence of that. In all the laboratories and zoos worldwide and all of the scientists researching just this sort of thing there has never been an animal born with additional genetic information....do they develop duplicate genes, yes....dominant genes, yes....additional traits...absolutely not. Now that we have the modern technology, laboratories, scientists and the cameras rolling so we can see it for ourselves, it just suddenly (and coincidentally) doesn't happen anymore. It really does take more faith to believe in evolution than Creation.
All the proof we have for evolution is animals with changing characteristics and features, these animals never give birth to entirely different animals...ie...chimp to human. Some would say that it takes millions of years for that kind of change to occur...but in reality it only takes days or months for a animal to be born with ADDITIONAL genetic information. It should be occuring every day...not having occured for millions of years and stopping now. We are given "proof" of micro-evolution and asked to believe in the "Theory of Evolution" aka the "Darwinian Model."
Micro evolution occurs, in my opinion, because we have a Creator God, who continues to create and care about meeting our needs. Really, it's a very hopeful and lovely idea.
Why is it that evolutionary scientist fight major legal battles to keep the debate against the evidence of evolution out of our schools and textbooks? Why is it that people cannot exercise their brains, and their knowledge and understanding by having organized, civilized debates,....afterall isn't that the very heart of science? To question and experiment with the data? People get so hostile when this subject comes up (not you personally just in general) What's the worst that could happen....some poor kid whose home-life is an absolute mess decides he believes in what Suzie said in class today and now has hope for a better future?...Is that really so bad? He should have parents at home communicating with him about his education to provide input and their beliefs on the child. On the other hand, I have a 21 year old son, being educated in a secular society that is questioning what he believes right now. That's okay too....so long as he is allowed to speculate and investigate on the different "theories" that are out there.
To some people evolution is a "theory" and to others a Creator God who loves us is a "theory." I am not qualified to argue this point to the definitive end...however it deserves to be continually studied...on both sides of the aisle. Jack I truly appreciate the fact that we can debate the subject in a civilized manner....and that we can agree to disagree without insulting each other. =)
Um, so let me get this straight: you want me to go and film the progression of some species, for possibly tens of thousands if not millions of years, and get back to you with the footage that shows one monkey programming a computer some day?
You yourself have said that micro-evolution exists, and many experiments have shown it. Why should we not believe it doesn't happen at the macro level? Because you haven't seen it first hand?
I find it funny the Jesus freaks don't believe in something because of a supposed lack of proof. Tell you what, I was raised Catholic and I don't remember seeing any CNN footage showing me Jesus' miraculous, still unproven, rise from the dead thing he did one random day that later on some pope decided should be celebrated around the pagan ritual for the equinox.
No, it is not. And that's the fundamental problem we have in this country. We have religious fanatics who believe that certain facts are subject to interpretation because they make them uncomfortable. Science class is not a place to debate Newton's theory of gravity or 3 laws of physics. It's not where students go to debate whether God helped evolution along, or whether it's a natural process. Science class is where students go to learn scientific facts, and theories GROUNDED in facts (unlike Creationism) and then learn the methods by which those theories were postulated. It's simple problem solving skills that will make this nation great. A 12 year old lacks the knowledge, and the scientific background, to debate the laws of physics and biology. They're there to learn them, so later on they can use them in their everyday life, or even refine them as biologists, etc.
I had a science project in high school to learn Bernoulli's theory, and then design an experiment to test the theory. I had no knowledge of the specifics of flight, and I didn't have the hubris to ignore the fact that planes DO indeed fly on their own, so I accepted the challenge and learned the information that was required to prove why a plane works. That began my infatuation with aviation, which is now how I make my living. I cannot imagine an environment in which 12 year olds are encouraged to ignore or debate scientific facts from decades of scientific research, just because their parents/preacher/Fox News told them they don't believe it.
</rant>
Ryan
"Why should we not believe it doesn't happen at the macro level? Because you haven't seen it first hand?"
No, not because I haven't seen it first hand but because it does not happen. Find me ONE proven example of an animal or like species that develops NEW AND ADDITIONAL genetic information. IT DOESN'T happen. The worlds evolutionary scientist (or creation scientists for that matter) simply cannot find it...yet this is what our schools teach our children...we don't say "this is what darwin believed happen however it cannot be proven"....we sell it to them as fact. We don't even explain the differences in Micro and Macro evolution....
You say so yourself "Science class is not a place to debate Newton's theory of gravity or 3 laws of physics. It's not where students go to debate whether God helped evolution along, or whether it's a natural process. Science class is where students go to learn scientific facts, and theories GROUNDED in facts (unlike Creationism) and then learn the methods by which those theories were postulated. It's simple problem solving skills that will make this nation great. A 12 year old lacks the knowledge, and the scientific background, to debate the laws of physics and biology. They're there to learn them,"
Okay so you propose that they are there to learn half of the equation...we are not talking about Newton's gravity or the laws of physics....those can be proven...but Macro-evolution cannot and we are mandated to teach it exclusively. That is just as wrong as us so called "Jesus Freaks" only presenting our own belief. The fact is Macro-evolution cannot be substantiated. I, at least, have thoroughly researched what I believe in....I didn't just go to the church my parents raised me in(which they did not by the way). Tell you what (in reference to your statement: Tell you what, I was raised Catholic and I don't remember seeing any CNN footage showing me Jesus' miraculous, still unproven, rise from the dead thing he did one random day that later on some pope decided should be celebrated around the pagan ritual for the equinox.")....I don't follow the rituals imposed by church's denominational views...I read my own Bible, which tells of how many people actually witnessed Jesus' presence and teaching after his death...It was a firsthand account written by Paul who was actually present. I know some churches don't actually encourage their people to read their Bible and practice what it illustrates in their daily lives (walk the walk), mine does and I am greatful for it.
And not being able to debate an issue is not the "fundamental problem" with this country either...it's everybody thinking they know better than everyone else and refusing to work together...ie....dems and republicans....when what we really need to do is revolutionize the ways we think and act...get along....be open minded...proved wrong sometimes, right at other times, and agreeing to disagree when there is no other option....but even then we should never squelch the education of others. You don't give 12 year olds enough credit....perhaps you should hang out with some...they are very capable of speaking their minds, evaluating data and making educated decisions.
I believe, also contrary to your belief, that Creationism can be held up to the scientific tests and can be no less disproven than the theory of evolution....that is why the argument is still going on and on and on and on and on......
Now Julie K, iffen they were nurtured to believe in the context/content of the Bible, then guess what, …… “DUH”, they are going to believe in the Bible.
And Julie K, do you actually know why you believe in the context/content of the Bible? And of course the answer is just another one of those ……. “DUH”, because you were nurture to believe in the Bible, the Christian Religion, … to believe in a God and Biblical Creation.
Julie K, do you actually remember or know why you per say believe in (read, write and speak) the English language? Most probably not, but anyway, the answer of course is another “DUH”. Julie K, your parents and guardians nurtured you to read, write and speak (believe in) the English language, and they did that prior to nurturing you to believe in (read, write and speak about) the context/content of the Christian Bible.
Well, “DUH”, Dr. David Menton had better keep right on saying such things iffen he wants to continue speaking at very many more of those conferences, ……. RIGHT.
Good grief, Julie K, your ignorance of history is appalling ….. or your Biblical Religious nurturing (beliefs) has blinded you the facts and reality of the historical records.
The Romans were quite learned in the Science of medicine and surgical procedures. The Greeks were quite learned in the Science of mechanics …… and in Mathematics, Astronomy and Planetary Motion. And Julie K, the Library of Alexandria was not a Bible Book Store.
But all that knowledge was lost to future generations when the Bible believing Christians took control around the 3rd Century AD and forced all of the Western World into the Dark Ages for the next 1,500+- years ……. and people like Galileo, Newton, Kepler, etc., had to start from scratch to figure things out again.
Julie K, me thinks the real issue at hand is ……. WHERE DID THEY FIND THE COAL?
And yours and/or your husband’s Bible based reason for where the coal is found, and the fossilized plant life found within it, ……. would be what?
How can anyone deny the actuality of macro-evolution ……. on a small scale, ….. when they can actually observe it happening with their very own eyes …….. by observing an ugly caterpillar spin a cocoon around itself …….. and then go through a complete transformation from one animal form (kind) to another kind ……… thus evolving into a beautiful butterfly with none of its new features resembling its former self?
Go ahead, Julie K, … tell me, …. or ask your husband to … tell me your God does that “quick change” act when it is inside of its cocoon.
Having earned my AB Degree in Physical and Biological Science many years ago, I am truly concerned about what is now being taught in the Public Schools as being actual, factual Science.
Cheers, Sam Cogar
Evolution exists, however, has been unable to explain how humans have come into existence.( missing link) One theory gaining popularity is human evolution was guided, or interfered with. It's actually the oldest know creation story, the Sumerian version. Call it God or Ancient aliens, whatever. What's important is that christian creationism and darwinian evolution, are two sides of the same coin. A coin that is possibly a FAKE! Two versions of the same LIE! Christians and atheists argue about who is right and maybe it's neither. Maybe it's time we start weighing All THE EVIDENCE! Some pieces that have always been overlooked, or dismissed by bad science, may BE the missing link. "God" may not be what christians want him to be, but the bible warns us that our pride will blind us of the truth. The truth may be something logic deems unreasonable. Let's just say "God" is the truth we all seek. Open your mind to the possibility that there is something greater. Something we would call "supernatural", and you will start to see the clues. If you believe you know what you are seeking, you fail to see everything else.
Julie: "show me one "tree" of apes that is in the process of evolving into a human...why would we assume that this has occured for millions of years and then stopped when we got here?"
Evolution has not stopped, in either apes or humans. Apes are evolving into something, but it wouldn't be human, because they are as far from the common ancestor as we are, and can't go back.
I would think that would be obvious to anyone who understands evolution.
Julie: ". Find me ONE proven example of an animal or like species that develops NEW AND ADDITIONAL genetic information." -- It happens all the time, through gene duplication or even the duplication of the entire genome. But most evolution does not require the addition of information, only its rearrangemnt. However, the entire evolution of all life defintitly did involve an increase in the amount of DNA, which is readily accomplished.
"All the proof we have for evolution is animals with changing characteristics and features, these animals never give birth to entirely different animals...ie...chimp to human."
Not to be too harsh, but this shows a lot of ignorance of the theory of evolution, for someone who claims to have "researched" it all. Whose husband supposedly knows evolution "inside and out."
In the theory of evolution, no animal ever gives birth to an entirely different animal. EVER. The reason we don't see it in the laboratory is because it can't happen; and evolution does not predict it happens.
I wonder what your husband is teaching those biology students, because it sure isn't evolution.
It happens all the time - have you ever contracted a virus? If you did you developed NEW AND ADDITIONAL genetic information.
If you're referring to evolution of a population through natural selection due to environmental pressure, the time scale of the process is so slow as to make it impractical to observe in most complex animals. However, the Lenski Experiment has shown (in a repeatable manner) the development of novel features in the E.coli bacterium.
One clue that Cretinism is wrong and evolution is right is that Cretinism has been a completely unproductive hypothesis - it has yielded no new science whatsoever, and predicts absolutely nothing about what we might find in the fossil record. In contrast the theory of evolution has been highly productive, and correlates very well with discoveries in other fields (DNA, etc).
Julie K: "I would agree that Micro-evolution is true and occurring, however I would not agree that Macro-evolution occurs now or ever."
IT"S THE SAME THING. Macro-evolution just takes longer. This is a fundamental misunderstanding of all creationists. Of course it was much easier when they could just deny it all. But now they have had to admit that micro-evolution occurs (since it is obvious). But that means they HAVE to believe that macro-evolution is something entirely different. But if they had ever actually learned about the theory of evolution they are trying to deny, they would know that they are not fundamentally different. Macro-evolution is just millions of years of accumulated micro-evolution.
Lion, this is the point I am trying to make. I don't want my pride to blind me...I do want all the evidence to be presented. I believe one way many others believe differently....THAT'S OK!!! =)
Sam C,
I don't teach high school science so there's no reason to worry about what I say in a classroom...there are state mandates as to what is taught and it is ridiculous for you to ASSUME that my husband, who isn't having this conversation, would teach differently that the mandated curriculum requires. Have you ever been a teacher?
Also, in my previous post I did say that I was not brought up in a Christian home, so I was not nurtured into my beliefs. I chose them. I also stated that my 21 year old son is exploring the "evidence" for himself and that I am completely ok with that.
Why on earth would you think that it is socially acceptable to come into a discussion and be demeaning and act like a bully. Just be nice.
Well, a few things come to mind reading your posts, Julie. I have a BS in Biology and grad work in that and other disciplines, and have worked in labs, hospitals, too as health care professional. I am a Biology/Earth & Space Science teacher by education, although I don't teach in school now. I just say this to point out that although I have a solid scientific/medical background I do not consider myself a professional scientist by any means, and your husband isn't either unless you left out a lot of his education and experience.
But even with my BS level education I can say that some of your conclusions indicate that you don't have a grasp of some essential scientific definitions and concepts. Of course you have a right to believe what you wish, but religious ideas aren't taught in science class because they belong in religion class or at home or church. And yes, I've been a teacher and have seen many teachers try to inject their religious beliefs and opinions into science class and school in general, so that is a legitimate concern.
I wouldn't insult you or anyone else, but I would say that your comments are part of a totally different discussion than many of the comments here. You are discussing your religious convictions that are based on faith, and that is cool, but it isn't part of aa scientific principles discussion. I understand that you won't agree with me, but I have looked at both sides of this too, and they are just two different conversations. That doesn't mean Christians can't find a way to merge the two...I know some who simply say God could make days as long as he wished and it all worked out...but it doesn't mean God must be injected into a scientific discussion of evolution to completely explain it. He can be, but it isn't essential for the discussion to be exhaustive.
And Julie, I respect you for allowing your son to follow his own path. That is wonderful:)
Julie K.: "...I do want all the evidence to be presented."
This is an important point. Most creationists are OK with this idea, because they have been told that evolution is weak, and so they believe that creationism would have a fair chance. LOL. They don't seem to realize that if all of the scientific evidence was presented to any objective person, it would be game over. Evolution is so obvious. But I do agree that students should be shown the evidence and thought processes that will help THEM come to that conclusion, because it is as important to teach studetns the process of science than the findings of science.
Julie: Ken Ham is a charlatan running a multimillion dollar corporation. I've read his literature in depth. He is one of the kings of quote mining. I believe everyone else above has answered you challenges to Darwin including correction of the out of context/altered "if one part is false, it's all false". Evolutionary biology has come a long way since Darwin.
Julie K, and just why in ell do you think that it is socially acceptable to ACCUSE ME of “coming into a discussion and be demeaning and act like a bully” …. when that is EXACTLY what you did …… and was EXACTLY what prompted me to respond to your delusional beliefs, outrageous claims of expertise in/of Science, pseudo facts, Christian agitprop and mimicry of all sorts and kinds of tripe and piffle that is neither based in fact or reality.
Like most avidly vocal proponents of the Bible and Biblical Creation, it appears “you want your cake and eat it to”.
Julie K, all such “news forums” such as this one, Cosmic Log (Newsvine) hosted by MSNBC, are some of the biggest damn classrooms in the world ..... with literally thousands of per say “students” listening n’ learning what is being discussed herein, … which ABSOLUTELY gives me reason to worry about what you claim to be true and factual.
And Julie K, you don’t have be a HS teacher, nor a HS teacher of Science, to exact a strong influence on the subject matter that is being taught or not taught to HS students given the fact that, to wit:
Julie K, in all of those years of your husband’s struggling, which way were you “pushin” on him to ease his quandary and to do what you thought was right for him to do? And Julie K, given the fact that you have been lauding your self presumed brilliance, intelligence and knowledge of evolution, geology, radiology, genetics and biology in general, do you really expect anyone to believe that you have not been doing the same in discussions with your husband over the past many years?
And Julie K, iffen your husband knows Darwin's theory inside and out …. then he should be criticizing you for statements such as this, to wit:
Or does he teach that to his science students?
GIMME A BREAK, ….. Julie K, there are also Federal Mandates as to what should be taught to insure NCLB, ….. but Teachers and Administrators don’t give a crapolla for it either. They teach to the test, and be damned with the rest.
Julie K, ask your husband what an AB Degree is, ….. and I will be greatly surprise iffen he doesn’t say “That’s what have”.
OH GOOD GRIEF, …. Julie K, you did not say that in your said previous post, …..your words verbatim, to wit: “....I didn't just go to the church my parents raised me in (which they did not by the way) ”.
You stated “church”, not ”Christian”, but that matters little because you also stated “I didn't just go to the church” …. which implied you did attend a church of some denomination. But anyway, young children are not solely nurtured by their parents, …… or by the church that their parents did not raise them in. Extended family members, siblings, peers, friends, strangers, etc. all contribute to one’s nurturing ….. and any of said can contribute greatly to one’s Religious beliefs. And Religious beliefs, like one’s native language, can be nurtured “in stone” long before a child has matured to a point it can make conscious decisions on its own.
So yes, Julie K, the child is or might be nurtured with the same fears, likes, dislikes, prejudices, biases, Religious beliefs, native language, vocal sounds, Political Party beliefs, etc., as those of either parent or any of the other aforementioned nurturers. And a child will never forget or question what it was originally nurtured with ….. and it will never try to change or alter said nurtured entities unless given good reason to do so. And thus, Julie K, without one iota of doubt I can guarantee you that your 21 year old son has permanently nurtured Religious beliefs that he learned from and/or were taught to him by you, your husband and like minded relatives and associates. And thus, most probably, in his exploration of the “evidence”, you son will be looking at it in the “same light” as you do. DUH, why wouldn’t he, he is your son, you were his primary nurturer.
Nurturing children to believe in the Bible is a “con game”. First they con them into believing in the Easter Bunny and Santa Claus by giving them candy and presents. And then they con them into believing that Easter and Christmas is also about Jesus by giving them more candy and presents. And then they con them into reading n’ believing stories and singing songs about what a great fellow Jesus was by giving them even more candy and presents. Then they con them into memorizing and singing that song “Jesus loves me, this I know, because the Bible tells me so”. Then they con them into reading n’ believing everything else in the Bible by reminding them that Jesus loves them and want them to believe what’s written in the Bible. Then they start telling all those Bible believing children to quit believing in the Easter Bunny and Santa Claus because that was just hocus-pocus crapolla they were being told, …… but to keep right on believing in Jesus and the Bible because it was the honest-to-God literal truth, absolutely factual and right as rain.
Thus, from being nurtured to believing in a Magical Rabbit to being nurtured to believing in the literal truth of the Bible, one’s Christian Religious nurturing has been a success.
Sam: while I appreciate your frustration, I don't think it's getting you anywhere.
Julie: I would ask that you read some of the above comments with an open mind and do try to read some more on evolution and geology from real scientific authorities. For many reasons the "scientists" you cited are not respected by their colleagues, and are not really scientists in the first place. I won't go into each, but please realize that Ken Ham is a fraud, as is the entire creation museum, as is his Institute for Creation Research (which does no research). Also please realize that the Discovery Institute and it's Center for Science and Culture do no actual research in any relevant field. They are effectively religious lobbyists. Please look into their "wedge document" detailing their strategy for discrediting science.
Good sources of information on evolution and on geology and physics are the talkorigins website (www.talkorigins.org); and the National Center for Science Education (www.ncse.com)
These are written by people who truly understand evolution and the supporting biology, paleontology, geology, and physics.
The biggest thing anyone who denies evolution must understand is that the old earth idea and evolution are supported by, or are the end result of, conclusions reached in many distinct areas of science. The same prinicples that lead to these conclusions are applied in technologies ranging from biology and medicine, to computers, astronomy, physics, and spaceflight. While our understanding of the universe is far from complete; if we were completely off base many of these technologies wouldn't work at all.
TJW-2847457, probably not very far with Julie K, but like I told her above, …. these forums are “some of the biggest damn classrooms in the world” ..... and if my rebuttal to all of her Pixie Sky Fairy claims dissuades just one (1) person from thinking and/or believing in any parts or pieces of her anti-science commentary …. then I feel I have accomplished something good.
I have no problem with someone’s Religious beliefs (capital “R”), but when they use their beliefs as a per say “weapon” to scare the bejesus out of the ignorant and gullible just to make themselves “feel better” about their own beliefs, …… and to appease n’ impress other members of their peer group of like minded believers, ….. then I have a big problem with that.
“A mind is a terrible thing to waste”, ….. especially if it is being wasted on endless hours of studying, memorizing, worshipping and rehashing, rehashing, rehashing, rehashing the plagiarized and fictional tall tales that were specifically selected by Church leaders to be included in their Bible.
Too much of that "religiousing" will rot your mind. Like the "suicide bombers" of the Islamic faith.
Sam: can't say I agree with you on everything, however as it's relevant to this discussion I agree with what you say regarding the difference b/w science and religion and how science education should be done. We can't have a nation where we fill children's heads with non-science in a science classroom. The founding fathers were right to separate church and state.
Giving equal time to that which can be scientifically demonstrated vs. that which can't is not only wrong but impossible. If we were to give equal time in science classes to both evolution and different creationist beliefs there would be no time for any other science (you'd have to include them all), and the class would become a comparison of world religions and cultural myths. While such a class would be interesting, it would also be something that belongs at the university level and it wouldn't be a science class.
I agree TJW. The churches already have schools devoted to teaching their philosophy, Sunday school and seminaries. If people are interested in such studies, they should seek it there. Putting such things in public schools is only an effort to promote their faith. Public school is not the place for that.
read this for some good scoop on our prehistoric ancestors www.saturniancosmology.org
Knowing this, I can truly appreciate my brother-in-law so much more now.
He's one of those almost-human relations, eh?
"Octopuses often break out of their aquariums and sometimes into others in search of food. They have even boarded fishing boats and opened holds to eat crabs.[7]" -WP
" ability to infer the presence of complex systems of causation between an observed cause and an observed effect,"
I am not sure all humans have developed that ability yet.
God works in mysterious ways. Though I try to see with open mind.
God does what God does and I am not the one to saw what or why.
But it is a good thing in the short term the crab population is increasing. More to share.
Long term, perhaps not so much.
Give me a break! The Earth has only existed for 6,000 years. Yes, this is proven in the Bible.
Religion makes fools of so many. Evidence that Homo Hablis is alive and well and not yet extinct.
yeah... and the Bible also says the saved at the end of time are 144,000 male virgins from the 12 tribes of Israel. I guess if we have to read the whole thing literally most of us are totally screwed and it doesn't really matter if we confess Christ as Lord. Oh... wait did I just find another contradiction?
Give you a break? Give us all a break! The Bible is full of contradictions. The only resolution is to realize that you are not supposed to take the whole thing literally. Especially when you consider how many revisions and retranslations it's been through! Don't get me wrong, I'm a Christian and have a lot of respect for the Bible and the faith, but when you go literal, you have to go all or nothing, and that just leads you down a path to self contradictory destruction.
Talk about drinking the kool-aid. I like to call these people, "liars for Jesus" although Jesus wouldn't have much to do with them...
Obama must have come from the lineage that was Homo Hablis and which we thought went extinct.
More2bits,no, I think you did
very interesting discussion.
I could have sworn there is a more Accurate dating system than RCD?
darwiniana.org/datingmethods.htm
Just to clarify from the interesting quote of 6000 years for the earth. I do have an understanding that (C.E.- AD) 2011 + 5500 BCE (earliest Pottery/ cave drawings- not specific language) makes that about 7500 years.
The human genome is being discovered in other places, that are reflecting (using the same dating methods in africa as in asia and the site in China) showing interesting dating positions for human values. (Quesem Cave I.E.)
Even in my faith, Im not foolish enough to think the CREATOR didnt provide for adaptation to evolve. That does not mean that Man came from plasm, as the mutations of E-coli, Cancer, Virus, or other bacteria still require..A HOST.
The theory of evolution as it is taught, Is taught incorrectly in a most simplistic way. One species can be forced to mate with another in the general animal kingdom, but there has never been a survivable situation that can show a (homo-) interbreed with any other animal that survives. (And I do beleive there are some scientist out there trying to make Frankenstein- IE Dolly type humans.)
Fellow believers do not think to remember, We were not the first creatures to be put on the earth.
day 1. Form, Light and Dark
day 2. Water and Sky
day 3. Earth and vegetation
day 4. Constellations, Sun, Moon, Stars
day 5. Creatures of the Sea, Creatures of the Air
day 6. beasts of the fields, followed by MAN, WOMAN
Each of those days (in active scripture is mentioned to be a day as 1000 years.)
so already we have 7000 years Minimum (2000 with (Homo-) history already, )
Then we can follow the 7500 +/- years since then in the history of the same book
Simply put, If we study what we preach, were up to 9500 years already.
There is no possiblity the teaching of 6000 years could be sound teaching, and
anyone who teaches that should be questioned, and asked why?
Another way of reading 'day' is long period of time.
Generally, I've found that the people with the least imagination and the smallest ideas about God believe that the Earth is young. It defies that which we see with our own eyes, so either God lied (impossible), every scientist is lying (improbably to the point of impossible), or Genesis is open to some interpretation. This idea is nothing knew; The visions of Daniel and John are never taken literally; they are assumed to by symbolic. Well, since Moses, not Adam, wrote Genesis, then he either got his information by word of mouth, or visions, and therefore, Genesis should be open to interpretation too.
Here's the issue. Some Christians have trouble living with or even admitting their own sins (let's just say 'shortcomings' for the sake of removing a charged term), so they need something to take their minds off of it. Homosexuality is a great diversion, since most (I say that with tongue in cheek) Christians don't practice that particular 'shortcoming.' So, they harp on it, point fingers, and feel righteous about themselves. Creation is the same sort of issue. It's a pretty safe thing for them to point their finger about and feel righteous. It never really occurs to most 'mainstream' Christians (if there is such a thing), that evolution vs. creation has zero impact on Christ's teachings. In fact, Christ never mentioned homosexuality, or abortion either, so if they want to be 'literal' Christians, they can't really mention it either.
The disturbing fact about 'Christian' churches these days is that they spend distressingly little time studying the teachings of Christ, because they inconveniently tell them to help the poor, sell all they have, give their money to the poor, and follow Christ, Put Christ above everything, including their SUV, etc. Now they tiptoe through some of Christ's teaching, and focus much more heavily on Paul (notice, they don't call themselves Paulatians), and the old testament (Judaism), which better supports their need to be wealthy, not help people, not love their neighbor, and fight wars (Jesus told Peter to put away his sword, and never talked about doing violence. In fact, he said not to return violence with violence. Very inconvenient).
You can always tell a real Christ follower from a 'mainstream Christian' by their actions. Another little thing Jesus said acts as a test for both believers and nonbelievers: You will know them by their fruit. In other words, the real deal walks the walk.
So. I agree with your post refuting the short Earth theory, I agree with, but not every Christ follower is so narrow minded.
Ummmm.....that's because one of the definitions for "different species" is reproductive incompatibility.
Do you detect the contradictions in that chronology? The light is separated from the dark before there are light-giving objects. And plants which require photosynthesis to survive are also created before light-giving objects.
Im not sure why you see any contradiction in the chronology. I was pointing and correcting any biblical scholar that speaks of a 6000 year old earth in that diagram as that would be impossible even without positive proof of accuracy or inaccuracies with dating methods, just based on the time scale that is represented biblically, and historically 9500 years Minimum have passed for (homo-) exsistence.
Also note that not all foliage require light. Mushrooms, Moss, Peace lily, Afircan Violet, many others require minimum light and water. Some plants growing in caves near stalagtites, require no light at all. Same with some fish.
That is a true statement, and we agree here. Branching the (homo-) species from another species would be impossible, which was a simple point, making the discovery in this specific article rather interesting.
,
Actually all I was implying is that evolution produces incremental change, but at some point you reach reproductive incompatibility. That incompatibility can be the result of many minor mutations or even a single mutation.
"Also note that not all foliage require light. Mushrooms, Moss, Peace lily, Afircan Violet, many others require minimum light and water. Some plants growing in caves near stalagtites, require no light at all. Same with some fish."
There you go, proof. One day is 1,000 years, so the entire ecosystem of planet earth just kind of dealt with no sun for a millennium. I'm sure the fossil record will agree, and if it doesn't, obviously the fossils are lying.
skrekk, regarding your statement, "that's because one of the definitions for "different species" is reproductive incompatibility."
The boundary between closely related species is often fuzzy. A better definition of a single species is a population of interbreeding individuals.
Individuals of different species often can and sometimes do interbreed. Sometimes it results in sterile offspring (eg, mules), but may also result in viable populations. Most Canis species can interbreed: red wolves contain both wolf and coyote genes. Oak species cross so often it's joked that taxonomists cannot keep up with them. Hybridization between species can introduce new combinations that result in explosive evolutionary events. Sunflower hybridization is a documented example. Species crossings have been used in plant breeding to introduce new genes to cultivated plants. Genetic engineering is a study in "forced crossings," if you will, to produce viable offspring.
Gene flow does not have to turn off like a spigot for separate populations to evolve in separate directions, or even into separate species. The idea of "species" is a semantic tool that we use to study differentiation between population. Nature doesn't have any law about who may breed successfully with whom.
Excellent post, John!
If this theory doesn't include Jesus riding up on His pet dinosaur to greet Adam and Eve, then Rick Perry has no interest in it. Just sayin'
Um.... Well, just um.
What does this even have to do with any part of this article?
If there was a fork in the road, did we take it?
Yes! It's called Alien Intervention.
I don't understand why evolution is at all at odds with a belief in God. It's obviously at odds with some people's belief as to how specifically we got to where we are, but it's certainly at odds with the belief that existence didn't just pop out of non-existence for no reason and with no cause.
So the question is how did that seemingly large transition happen relatively quickly - and why ? Or are suggestive fossil remains not indicating an evolutionary chain but more evidence of a mixing of human and not as human DNA's ?
The Common Sense Guide to the Evolution Debate
Step 1 Two types of theory.
The dictionary lists two separate meanings for the word “Theory”: (1) “a hypothesis that has been confirmed or established by observation or experiment, and is propounded or accepted as accounting for the known facts” and (2) “Speculation or conjecture”. To say that scientists are using the second type is dishonest or as stupid as saying that batsmen are using small furry nocturnal animals to hit balls around the base-ball diamond.
Step 2: The jury is not still out.
No major university teaches an alternative to evolution or that the world is 6000 years old. Even creationist Dr Michael Egnor admits that Darwinism “has been elevated to the status of the scientific theory that governs modern biology."
Step 3 Science thrives on controversy
Scientists do not just “say as other scientists say”, as some creationists claim. That would lead to stasis. Ambitious scientists like to challenge the orthodoxy. Nor is contrary evidence suppressed to protect “vested interests” as has also been claimed. It is not clear what “vested interests” could be involved. Investors look to science for good profitable results, which come from good science, well applied. The implication is that the vested interests which do not accept the "evidence” contrary to evolution are supernatural – god-denial etc.
Step 4 Common sense refutation of god denial
As the leaders of the major christian and jewish sects (and the majority of their followers) have no problem in reconciling their faith in god and their acceptance of evolution, it follows that the only people who could use evolution as a kind of god-denial are those that were brought up bible believing creationists in the first place but who have rebelled.
Step 5 Where are the FAGS?
FAGS are ”Foundations for Applied Genesis Science” or rather they aren’t because they don’t exist. Surely if it is true that the earth and all species were independently created just 6000 years ago it would be possible to make useful predictions based on this hypothesis. Such applied Genesis science, assuming it to be based on the truth, would surely generate valuable research providing benefits for instance in the areas of medicine, seismology and exploration for oil – benefits for mankind in general. Where are the FAGs and why are investors not falling over themselves to pour their money into them? Why do oil companies only hire “old earth” geologists to find their oil?
I propose a simple test to weed out candidates for President.
Ask them for a straight yes/no to the question "Do you believe that the scientific evidence does, or is ever likely to, support the contention that the earth was created around 6,000 years ago in the manner described in Genesis?"
Those that answer yes are either woefully ignorant of science and out of touch with reality or being cynically dishonest. In either case they are unfit for high office
Ulaan thanks for the response. So for you seem to be the only person here that is not completely blinded and and immersed in evolutionary rhetoric and an i am smarter than you complex. But your thoughtful post does not condemn things evolving into superior things, it supports it. Natural selection favors survival of the fittest. You stated "
All evolution does, basically, is to measure a mutation, a genetic change, in a neutral laboratory: the time, place, and ecological conditions where the organism lives. If the change is not beneficial, the organism either dies pretty quickly or, over time, is unable to pass the change on in sufficient numbers that it survives. The change and the line carrying it dies out.
If, on the other hand, the change is beneficial--dark skin in the tropics is useful for preventing an overdose of vitamin D, just as lighter skin farther north is beneficial for getting your daily dose--if the change is beneficial, the organism with the change has a slight advantage when it comes to reproducing. Eventually, the beneficial effect becomes widespread and is the new normal. Until something else changes, and then IT gets tested.
No change is ever prejudged--it is weighed and tested in the only thing that matter: passing on the trait."
The process is not prejudice. The theory that we all descended from a dark skinned African ancestor to the various other lighter skinned people of the world is. I to once believed everything i was told by scientist or thinkers. I revere science as much as most of you on here but you can't blindly follow anything you must do your homework, draw conclusions from facts not accept what you assume to be fact because it's what "they" say.
Nebraska Man
Early 20th century artist’s conception of Nebraska Man
The June 24, 1922 Illustrated London News presented on its front cover a man and a woman that had been fabricated from a single tooth. The artist even incorporated into the drawings of this alleged “missing link” imaginary surroundings and clothing. Henry Fairfield Osborn, head of the department of paleontology at New York’s famed American Museum of Natural History, received the tooth and was prepared to enter it as evidence at the 1925 Scopes “Monkey” trial. However, by 1927, scientists had concluded (somewhat begrudgingly) that, in fact, the tooth was that of a species of Prosthennops—an extinct genus related to the modern peccary (a wild pig). No missing link here.
Piltdown Man
In 1912, Charles Dawson, a medical doctor and amateur paleontologist, discovered a mandible and a portion of a skull in a gravel pit at Piltdown, England. Arthur Smith-Woodward, director of the Natural History Museum of London, announced the find as the “missing link.” The jawbone appeared very simian-like except for the teeth, which seemed to show the type of wear expected of humans. In 1953, Piltdown Man was exposed as a forgery. The skull was human, and the teeth on the ape’s jaw had been intentionally filed down and treated biochemically to make them appear old. This deception did far more than dupe a few evolutionists, however. The whole world was taken in. Museums worldwide proudly displayed copies and photographs of the Piltdown remains. For forty years this “find” was pronounced as the ape-like ancestor to modern man. But it was just a fraud. No missing link here.
Orce Man
In 1982, a team of three Catalan archaeologists, headed by professor José Gibert, were digging near the village of Orce in Spain. During their dig, they uncovered an unusual bone fragment. A year later, they announced that the fragment belonged to a human child—causing an uproar in the evolutionary community. This discovery placed humans in Europe much earlier than evolutionists had ever predicted. Based on this find, some over-eager scientists reconstructed an entire human. Orce Man, as the find came to be known, was said to represent the oldest human fossil ever discovered in Europe. Later, to the embarrassment of many, the bone was identified as the skull cap of a 6-month-old donkey! No missing link here.
Rhodesian Man
This famous skeleton was found in 1921 in a zinc mine in what was then British Rhodesia in southern Africa. The find consisted of the bones of three or four individuals: a man, a woman, and one or two children. Unfortunately, the bones were extracted from their surroundings by the mining company, not experienced scientists. After the bones reached the British Museum of Natural History, they were reconstructed and displayed prominently for many years. Unfortunately, museum employees who were unfamiliar with human anatomy reconstructed this “ape- man.” Since the hipbones were smashed, the designers fashioned this fossil as being stooped over. It wasn’t until many years later, when anatomists examined the skeleton, that it was determined to be nothing more than a modern man. No missing link here.
Java Man
This “missing link” was classified as a member of Homo erectus, the group of creatures that was supposed to have given rise to Homo sapiens (humans). Eugene Dubois had gone to the former Dutch Indies as a health officer in 1887 to search for fossils. Later, in 1890, the Dutch anatomist focused his attention on the banks of the Solo River near the village of Trinil. Excavators discovered a human-like fossilized tooth in September 1891. One month later, they uncovered the upper part of a skull. A year later, the team discovered a thigh bone in the same sandstone layers, about fifteen meters upstream. Despite additional excavations, the team did not discover anything else except one tooth. As it turns out, the leg bone and teeth were, in fact, human. However, the skullcap eventually was shown to be from a giant gibbon (a monkey). No missing link here.
"but you can't blindly follow anything you must do your homework, draw conclusions from facts not accept what you assume to be fact because it's what "they" say."
Agreed. Drawing conclusions from facts and logic only is the process of science. And that process leads directly and obviously to the fact of evolution.
The term "superior" is a judgment which isn't supported or indicated by the theory of evolution. Populations adapt over time to better fit their environmental niche, but that doesn't mean that homo sapiens sapiens is "superior" to homo erectus. In fact, many of our ancestor or cousin species existed for a much longer time than homo sapiens sapiens has, indicating that they matched their environment better than we do.
Tim: citing acknowledged hoaxes does not refute the other legitimate skeletal remains that form our present understanding of the human family tree. Scientist are human, too, and have occasionally be less than honest. Others have made hoaxes specifically to discredit evolution. The beauty of real science is that fraud will eventually be caught, unlike in blind acceptance of scripture.
Right you are, Tim.
The Out of Africa Theory of human evolution begs the question of: “Which came first, the hairless hominoid or the black skinned hominoid”?
And the answers is, ….. a very pale and light colored hairless homonoid.
And why did our hairy human ancestors need additional protection against ultraviolet solar radiation? Because ……. We Are the Apes Who Took to the Sea ….. and a hairy body was more trouble than it was worth, ….. and thus we evolved differently to become The Aquatic Ape.
Nothing makes sense in the Evolution of Homo sapiens other than The Aquatic Ape Theory.
Tim can you explain why it would be in the interests of people to invest good money in what you say is bad science? A simple google of "million years" and the name of the top oil companies indicates that they recognise that the earth is not a mere 6 thousand years old.
Were just vessels for the transfer of genetic material.
Aaaaand that's the meaning of life. Sorry if you were hoping for something more!
yeah, but we're pretty darn good-looking vessels.
Perhaps both sides are right and wrong, in the sense that each feels the other side is wrong. For example, maybe the creator cooked a pot of soup (the Earth), threw in some chemical ingredients - carbon, water, etc..., turned on the burner (our sun), walked away and allowed the soup to boil (evolution).
Maybe evolution is god cooking the soup (Earth) afterall! Would not that be a wonderful thing for science to find out some day? That religion and science are not necessarily mutually exclusive? I will admit, I do lean towards the evolutionist view, being agnostic, undecided if you will. just sayin...
Max: no one can prove or disprove that God is behind evolution. I personally think that you are right and He/She/It is behind it all. However, personal feelings and faith are not the realm of science. Science simply seeks a mechanism by which things happen. The "God is behind it" notion is one of faith, and not required by the science and so therefore must be left out of the discussion from a scientific standpoint and also must be left out of science classrooms.
My 2nd point would be, similar to creationism vs. evolution, that the global warming fight should not be about who is right and who is wrong. Rather, we should all just admit that global warming is happening, (fact), but remain objective about what exactly is causing it & to what degree.
The truth is we just don't know for sure, since we've only be monitoring it with scientific methodology for a short period of time. Sure we can attribute that humans have changed the atmosphere with measurements, but do we know for a fact that these changes are the sole contributor to the climate changes, at what % are we really changing the weather, or at what % do natural processes have to play?
Here I must disagree with you completely. While we may not fully know what percentage of planetary warming is due to our actions, we can know that CO2 levels are rising to levels not seen in many millenia and that the rate of rise is far greater than any found in the geologic record. We can readily quantify what percentage of CO2 release is due to human undertakings.
So we have two potential answers to the questions of humankind's impact (simplification for the sake of argument, the answer really could be somewhere on a spectrum in between): 1.) we have little to no impact on global warming. 2.) we are responsible for the majority of global warming.
If the former is true we do no harm to our environment by limiting our release of CO2. If the latter is true, and we do nothing, we risk the survival of our civilization certainly, and possibly of our species. While there will be short term economic cost to changing our infrastructure and by regulating industry and individuals, the long term benefit of getting off the oil kick and finding renewable, cheaper (eventually) energy sources will be great.
And on the above, I must disagree with you completely.
None of the above is founded in actual, factual Science, ........... but only on assumptions, ...... associations ........ and Junk Science.
interesting... citation?
Citation? How’s come most proponents of CO2 caused AGW keep asking for citations when they either: 1) have absolutely no intention of reading and/or considering the contents/context of said citation(s) unless it mimics their claimed beliefs; or, 2) they are not adequately learned in the Sciences to determine the factuality of, engage in intelligent discussion of and/or make critical judgment of the contents/context of said citation(s) even if they per chance did read said citation(s)? Replying to a cited “url link” by posting 2 or 3 contrary sounding “url links” does not an intelligent conversation make.
TJW, here following are my cited claims, all of which are based in/on factual science, mathematics, logical reasoning, etc., and any one of which I can provide intelligent commentary to support and/or justify said as being factually true. To wit:
With so many things that literally disproves CO2 caused Anthropogenic Global Warming then it is apparently a “religious belief” of many or most of the proponents of said that causes them to deny said literal “truths”.
Citations, etc:
I compiled the following statistics via reliable sources, to wit:
World Population & Atmospheric CO2 by Decade
year -- # people ------ % increase _— CO2 ppm - % increase
Based on the above statistics, to wit:
Fact #1 - In 70 years – population increased 198% - CO2 increased 29% - Heat Islands increased est. 300/400%
Fact #2 - Atmospheric CO2 has been steadily and consistently increasing at a rate of 1 to 2 ppm per year for the past 70 years, …… whereas human generated CO2 releases have been increasing exponentially every year for the past 70 years.
Fact #3 - Global Temperatures has been steadily and consistently increasing a few hundredths or tenths of a degree for the past 70 years, ……. whereas human created infrastructure, housing, vehicles, etc. (Heat Islands) have been increasing exponentially every year for the past 70 years.
Conclusions:
Given the above statistics, it appears to me to be quite obvious that for the past 70 years there is absolutely no direct association or correlation between:
But then of course, …… I am not looking through Rose Colored Glasses.
-------------------
-----------------------
-------------------
----------------------------
While the proponents of CO2 caused AGW like to point out the mass total of human CO2 emissions from burning fossil fuels which contain the C-12 isotope of Carbon, they habitually neglect to state the estimated total of natural CO2 emissions which also contain the C-12 isotope of Carbon. Here are the main sources for natural CO2 emissions.
Any search of the carbon cycle will show that regardless of how you state the numbers, mankind is not the dominant source of atmospheric CO2 emissions.
in spite of your comment to the contrary I do intend to look at your information. I remain open minded about science in any area, whether it be climate or even evolution.
I find your over the top approach rather offensive, though. If you want to convince people of your logic, you will fail miserably by being rude and treating everyone else like they're a moron. if you're the same SamC from the argument with Julie, I understand why she got so defensive, even though I agree with you on the errors of her thinking.
It's really not necessary to bold every other word in your statements, if they have merit, I can figure that out.
Again, though, thank you for the information, I'll be happy to read through it.
TJW, that is all one should be asked to do. And TJW, if you are dubious about any of said “information” you might have query me about it because I might be the “author” of said and thus you will not find any other reference to it other than what I have voiced.
Yup, and you can bet there are tens of thousands of Administrators, Professors, Teachers, parents and students that think the same as you do. And that is one of the primary reasons that US Public Education has been on a downhill slide into the Cesspool of Ignorance for the past 30+ years.
YUP, most all the above Administrators, Professors, Teachers and parents do not want to “fail miserably by being rude to their children and/or students”, …… but then said children and/or students are failing miserably as a result of the above said.
If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck ….. then I should not assume it is a cat even though it tries to convince me it is.
If you don’t know, then ask. If you are not sure, then say so. But if you imply, assert, suggest and/or claim something is true and/or factual then you damn well better be prepared to defend your comment(s).
In my opinion, a clue of one’s ignorance is when they, prior to any discussion of the “subject”, mimic the question of: Citation? GEEEZE, … I was once asked for a “citation” in response to my math calculations that I had posted. If I am the author of the verbiage I post then don’t be a silly mimic by asking me to provide a “citation” for said …. because it is in itself ….. the “citation”. “Original thinkers” do not have to, nor can they, provide a “citation” for their original thoughts.
TJW, in Post #51.1 you made the definitive statement of:
…… without providing a citation(s) to prove, backup or justify your claimed knowledge of said. But then, TJW, when I replied in kind, you had the devious audacity to ask me for a citation. Who the hell do you think you are, a member of the “elite class” who don’t have to abide by the “rules” you impose on those you consider your “underlings”?
HA, it’s no frigging wonder that you think that I “fail miserably by being rude to you”.
Well “DUH”, must be like two peas in a pod, both getting pierty n’ pouty at anyone who has the nerve to question their intellectual authority. By the way, TJW, hows come you never asked Julie K for a “citation” when you questioned “the errors of her thinking”? HUH, HUH?
“Bold faced type” serves an extremely important function, just ask any Publisher, Editor or Advertiser if that is not a “fact of reality”?
TJW, have you voiced that same complaint/critique of yours to any of said Publishers, Editors or Advertisers, ……. and if not, ….. why not?
Here we go again. A few bones of some old extinct monkeys displayed and entire books and articles are written about how they support the dying evolutionary religion. Who funds these people anyway? Sure would be nice if science blew its money on something worthwhile for a change. I for one am puke sick of seeing scientific magazines, books, and news articles that try to show in vain how humans evolved from or are connected to monkeys in some round about way through "evolution".
You must be a product of the Texas school system.
Good question, Eric. Who does fund them and why if it is not good science. It's certainly nothing to do with God denial because most Christian leaders fully accept evolution. The Common sense answer to your question is that those who are interested in learning more about science fund the science which produces good consistent results. Just like those who fund oil companies, which without exception operate according to the old earth geological model, are happy to invest their money in the model that produces good results.
Last time I checked evolution is not a "theory in crisis" as creationists claim. Evidence for evolution and an old earth is extraordinarily strong. The same can't be said for the Bible that creationists cling to. I don't mean to denigrate faith, nor do I mean to say the Bible is without merit, but evolution is not a religion. And it's certainly not dying.
Let's go further into this business of funding. Anne Coulter has stated that "modern science has disproved Darwinian evolution". IF she had said that modern science has gone beyond Darwinian evolution she would have been more correct but let us assume that she meant that science has now disproved the notion that all life has evolved from a common ancestor.
If she is correct this raises profound questions. It is a fact that all major universities teach evolution as the basis for their biology programs. It is also a fact that bio-technology is an increasingly important part of the economies of Western nations.
According to Ms Coulter, the univeriserties must be turning out graduates who are wholly ignorant of "modern science" and applying a model which must be hopelessly inaccurate.
Why do we not see open letters to national newspapers from biotech companies deploring this situation and the fact that they find it almost impossible to recruit graduates who are abreast of the times.
Creationists would have us believe that it is because scientists (and presumably those who employ them) are desperate to exclude god and embrace a materialist explanation of biology. This would mean that the investors in biotech companies are more interested in materialist purity than making profits.
What has capitalism come to?
Johnnie: do you mind if I quote you in the future? That's one of the best logical arguments against the "global Darwinist conspiracy" idea that I've ever read.
New report ranks U.S. teens 29th in science worldwide
December 5, 2007 - That, at least, is one conclusion of a major report released Tuesday by the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). It measures student literacy in science, math, and reading (focusing this year on science) among 15-year-olds, and is an often-cited reference for policymakers sounding the alarm bells about the state of education in the United States and its implications for the ability of Americans to secure jobs in a global economy http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/1205/p02s01-usgn.html
Big difference b/w 15 y/o kids in high school science classes, which are increasingly deplorable in this country and university science grads. I agree that the state of education, especially in science and math in this country is pretty bad, but Johnnie makes a great argument that if the universities were turning out science/math ignoramuses then we would know about it. This would be especially true if they were basing their education on junk science.
You don't sound like the same SamC from above who was arguing with Julie... you suddenly seem like you're on the other side. The person above doesn't sound like the type who would cite anything from the Christian Science Monitor.
Yes my argument was about biotech companies and their being happy to hire graduates whose qualifications were based on evolution science.
Not surprisingly there is a complaint about general science literacy if creationism is being pushed in schools.
TJW, are you trying to be “cute” by posting that CYA …….. or are you a beneficiary of the deplorable state that Public Education has morphed into over the past 30+- years. Morphed into primarily being a “For Profit Business” …. rather than remaining an “Institution of Learning”.
TJW, are you actually thinking that the United State’s educational ranking worldwide, has dropped from 1st place to 29th place in one fell swoop over the past 4 years? Mercy gawds, me think you do.
GOOD GRIEF, ….. TJW, do neither you nor Johnnie Marre understand or comprehend how the US Public Education System has been functioning over the past 30+ years? Apparently not, so let me enlighten you both.
Thirty (30) plus years ago the “quality and content” of educational material being taught to High School students began its “downhill run” ……. and has exacerbated ever since,…. which over said past 30 years has necessitated a decrease in Test Score Averages to guarantee a “passing Grade” thru all Grade Levels ….. thus insuring students met Graduation Requirements and received their HS Diploma. Those aforementioned HS Graduates entered Colleges and Universities where they were treated likewise by their Professors and Instructors and were thus awarded their Degrees. The “bestest and the brightest” of the bunch over the past 30+ years went on to do great things in the Private Sector, whereas the “not so bestest nor brightest” took jobs as Teachers, Administrators, Instructors and Professors in the Public School System.
Thus, TJW, after said 30+ year of “in-breeding” whereby Teachers are teaching students to be Teachers, ….. and Teachers teaching Teachers to be Teachers, who then teach more students to be Teachers there is no way in hell the current crop of Teachers, Administrators, Instructors and/or Professors would even be competent enough to know if they were “turning out science/math ignoramuses” or ignoramuses in any other Discipline. And of course they don’t think or believe that they are teaching “junk science” and that is because their mentors taught them it was actual, factual science they were learning. And to add insult to injury, all the aforementioned students have been birthing and raising children over said past 30+ years, teaching them what they were taught, ….. and thus I figure the US has lost at least four (4) generations of children who were never adequately educated …. and I do not foresee any possibility that this trend can ever be reversed.
TJW, now you gone from just trying to be “cute” …….. to actually “showing” your arse for what it is.
TJW, just what the hell is your problem with the Christian Science Monitor reporting on a study conducted by the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD)?
Sam: I think in your anger you've completely missed the point of this particular thread. I don't think Johnnie was trying to defend the educational system as a whole, but really only saying that if evolution was bad science then there would be plenty of businesses decrying the poor education of biology graduates from America's universities. I don't think he really intended to discussed the decline of American public education.
Regarding your other comments (which are mostly inflammatory and do not add to the discussion). I actually was fortunate enough to have private education my whole life (not at home or church schools).
As to my comment about the Christian Science Monitor, I have no issue with the particular article in question, but again, you did not seem like a person who frequently reads a newspaper/magazine sponsored by a church group. no offense was intended, I was merely questioning if a troll had assumed your name because you suddenly sound very different.
At no point in my above responses was I trying to be "cute" or "show my arse". I was merely trying to point out that your recent posting sound very different from the SamC who posted on the first page and seemed a very staunch supporter of evolution. When you can't even acknowledge when people agree with you, then you have a serious problem. Personally i think you have delusions of persecuation, and do not intend to respond to any further comments from you on this board.
The ell you don't have an issue with that particular article, it was proof of your false claim. DUH
And your above quoted comment is but another snide, devious and demeaning comment like the one(s) that got my dander up to begin with. You claimed that there were no big problems with the “quality” of the students of Science that universities were graduating …… and to either prove your ignorance of or your partisanship and/or favoritism for the Educators in said …. I Googled “US education ranking” and randomly picked a published News item out of the thousands listed … to enlighten you on “the facts of the matter”.
But instead of you retracting your false claims, like an honest person would do, you chose to CYA by posting a demeaning comment in an attempt to defame my good name and creditability. A comment that had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the expertise of college/university graduates in/of Science …… but was simply stated solely for personal purposes. And your comment about “delusions of persecuation” (sic) was just “more-of-the-same” crapolla being voiced by you.
And your claimed intent not to respond to any further comments authored by me is probably a really good idea, …. unless you clean up your act, ….. because I won’t let you get by with such obfuscations.