Aegyptopithecus

[ChristineM]

Oh, ok. I haven't seen any facts yet, but if I do . . .

Maybe this will help too.

Lines of evidence: The science of evolution

Of course you must read the facts to see them

 

[Subduction Zone]

You are not helping me. You are not listening to me.

He did listen to you. Once again, the link I gave was merely for your benefit. I was not using it to argue at all. It would not hurt to read a reliable article now and then. The popular press is inaccurate an amazing percentage of the time when it comes to any science article. They "dumb it down" so far that many facts are misrepresented. Wikipedia is more reliable and the original articles are more reliable than Wiki. But each one gets more and more difficult to read. Wiki is a good compromise of reliability and readability.

 

[Earthling]

He did listen to you. Once again, the link I gave was merely for your benefit. I was not using it to argue at all. It would not hurt to read a reliable article now and then. The popular press is inaccurate an amazing percentage of the time when it comes to any science article. They "dumb it down" so far that many facts are misrepresented. Wikipedia is more reliable and the original articles are more reliable than Wiki. But each one gets more and more difficult to read. Wiki is a good compromise of reliability and readability.

I think you have all taught me what I need to know. Thanks, I appreciate it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I think you have all taught me what I need to know. Thanks, I appreciate it.

Feel free to ask questions. If I see nonsense taken from a creationist that I recognize and treated as if it is a valid argument things will not go well. But individual questions, one per post please. will be answered.


For example have you heard that rocks can be "dated by the fossils"? I can explain that for you.

 

[RabbiO]

For example have you heard that rocks can be "dated by the fossils"?

But after they've been dating, if they decide to get married can a baker refuse to decorate a wedding cake?

 

[Subduction Zone]

But after they've been dating, if they decide to get married can a baker refuse to decorate a wedding cake?

Luckily for the bakers soft tissues, such as reproductive organs, do not fossilize very well at all. If he can determine the gender of the fossils he can make any decision that he wants to in regards to a cake. A name does not tell one gender. For years I did not know that "Porgy and Bess" was about a man and a woman. It sounded rather lesbian to me

 

[Windwalker]

Why is evolution seen as such a threat to some types of Christians? That should be the newspaper headline.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Why is evolution seen as such a threat to some types of Christians? That should be the newspaper headline.

Seriously I take it as a sign of a weakness of faith. If reality gets in the way of one's religious beliefs what does that say about them? There are countless Christians, very probably the majority, that have no problem accepting evolution and their Christian beliefs.

 

[Windwalker]

Seriously I take it as a sign of a weakness of faith.

I absolutely agree with this. It is a sign of weak faith, which they they turn around and distort religious faith into "Never give an inch on your beliefs" as what faith means. It means the opposite of that. Faith embraces knowledge in the hopes it can remove ignorance, not brace yourself against knowledge which challenges your beliefs.

If reality gets in the way of one's religious beliefs what does that say about them?

They are fearful. That's what it says. Being fearful is what defines a lack of faith.

There are countless Christians, very probably the majority, that have no problem accepting evolution and their Christian beliefs.

Yes. What about them? How do the evolution deniers view other Christians who embrace both God and evolution, without needing to deny parts of it to fit their ideas about God? Do they view them as not true Christians? Such a lack of integrity that goes hand in hand with fear instead of faith.

 

[metis]

In Uppsala, Sweden a conference consisting of radio-chemists, archaeologists and geologists was held in which they determined that the rate of radioactive carbon formation in the atmosphere has not been consistent in the past and radiocarbon testing is not reliable in dating objects from about 2000 B.C.E. or before. Seattle Post-Intelligencer, "Radiocarbon Dating Wrong," January 18, 1976, p. C8

“The research in the development of the dating technique consisted of two stages—dating of samples from the historical and the prehistorical epochs, respectively. Arnold and I had our first shock when our advisers informed us that history extended back only for 5000 years. . . . . You read statements to the effect that such and such a society or archeological site is 20,000 years old. We learned rather abruptly that these numbers, these ancient ages, are not known accurately.”
Science, "Radiocarbon Dating," by W. F. Libby, March 3, 1961, p. 624

C-14 dating cannot be used when dealing with human evolution since it area is quite limited to mre recent times. Plus it is adjusted largely be using tree-rings.

Instead, various isotopes of radioactive dating are commonly used, which gives us generally more precise dates, but that's at least partially dependent upon what's actually being dated.

 

[metis]

But after they've been dating, if they decide to get married can a baker refuse to decorate a wedding cake?

I think that with the above you just put the frosting on the cake.

 

[blü 2]

Agreed, then headlines like the following are irresponsible journalism or poor science?

“Monkey-like creature was our ancestor.” (Time)

“Monkeylike African Primate Called Common Ancestor of Man and Apes.” (The New York Times)

“Aegyptopithecus is an ancestor which we share with living apes.” (Origins)

The mammals are a class within the order Reptilia.

The evolutionary line runs:
Class Mammalia >
Subclass Theriiformes (vivipars) >
Infraclass Holotheria (modern vivipars) >
Supercohort Theria (vivipars) >
Cohort Placentalia >
Magnorder Epitheria >
Grandorder Archonta (bats, primates, treeshrews)
Suborder Haplorrhini (tarsiers, monkeys, apes)
Infraorder Simiiformes >
Parvorder Catarrhini >
Superfamily Hominoidea >
Family Hominidae >
Subfamily Homininae >
Genus Homo >
Species Homo sap sap

Aegyptopithecus was a member of the suborder Haplorrhini ['simple-nose' mammals ie not wet-nose like canines, felines, bovines &c] as were the ancestors of H sap sap. Whether Aegyptopithecus was such a direct ancestor, or whether we're decended from some other kind of Haplorrhine, is a matter of expert opinion, not as to fact so much as likelihood. The newspaper quotes you give all say they report scientific opinion, so the question is whether that opinion goes further than what's above.

It would be very unfair to slather the reports as some kind of gross misrepresentation, though.

 

[Audie]

I didn't say that I did, and I asked you not to throw links at me. Extract the relevant portion and give the address for reference.

The spoon fed you bad science when you were in school,
and you still want to be spoon fed?

 

[sayak83]

In Uppsala, Sweden a conference consisting of radio-chemists, archaeologists and geologists was held in which they determined that the rate of radioactive carbon formation in the atmosphere has not been consistent in the past and radiocarbon testing is not reliable in dating objects from about 2000 B.C.E. or before. Seattle Post-Intelligencer, "Radiocarbon Dating Wrong," January 18, 1976, p. C8

“The research in the development of the dating technique consisted of two stages—dating of samples from the historical and the prehistorical epochs, respectively. Arnold and I had our first shock when our advisers informed us that history extended back only for 5000 years. . . . . You read statements to the effect that such and such a society or archeological site is 20,000 years old. We learned rather abruptly that these numbers, these ancient ages, are not known accurately.”
Science, "Radiocarbon Dating," by W. F. Libby, March 3, 1961, p. 624

Radiocarbon dating has become very very precise since 1976, as had other dating methods. Science improves the accuracy of its measurement processes.

Why are u quoting such an old piece of news, by the way.

 

[sayak83]

LOL. Were they untrue then, and if not how have they changed?

Better measurements of the atmospheric chemistry have accurately taken account of these variations since 1976.

 

[Rational Agnostic]

I think you have all taught me what I need to know. Thanks, I appreciate it.

I recommend reading Why Evolution is True by Jerry Coyne. In this book, Coyne lays out all of the evidence for evolution in a very compelling, and easy-to-understand manner.

 

[sayak83]

Very good point, somewhat impractical advice, but certainly true - and the science minded atheist proclaiming evolution as fact? Should I ignore those?

Evolution is as much a fact as earth revolving around the sun. There is as much evidence for one as there is for the other. I will note though that the word "fact" is never used in science. Its more of a common usage outside of science.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Better measurements of the atmospheric chemistry have accurately taken account of these variations since 1976.

He got his ideas from Kent Hovind. Kent is so ignorant he thinks that if he refutes C14 dating that he refutes evolution though since it can be used only for very recent life so it has almost no use at all in the science of evolution. The specimen that he was talking about, aegytpopithecus, was dated at least partially using paleomagnetic records:

Revised age estimates for the later Paleogene mammal faunas of Egypt and Oman

For those that do not know the polarity of the Earth's magnetic field reverses quite often. The pattern of reversals are well recorded in igneous rocks which can be dated very easily using radiometric dating. By comparing the direction of preserved magnetic fields in sediments the ages of layers can be matched to those records and a fairly accurate date can be deduced from the data.

 

[dfnj]

What are the links, if any, connecting the Egyptian Ape to man? A simple question requires only a simple answer.

Apes have two eyes. We have two eyes. Apes have two ears. We have two ears. Apes have hair. We have hair. Apes nurse their babies. We nurse our babies. Apes have finger nails. We have finger nails. Apes have 10 fingers and 10 toes. We have 10 fingers and 10 toes. Apes have a spine. We have a spine. Apes have two lungs. We have two lungs. Apes have a heart. We have a heart. Apes poop. We poop. Apes copulate to make babies. We copulate to make babies. And so on, and so on....

Hmmmm, there sure a lot of similarities!

 

[QuestioningMind]

Very good point, somewhat impractical advice, but certainly true - and the science minded atheist proclaiming evolution as fact? Should I ignore those?

Evolution is as close to we come to fact in science. It's a time tested theory, just like the theory that the Earth orbits around the sun.