More News on the Changing Evolution Scene :-) !!! :-)

[YoursTrue]

It has the basic features of a base ape, as far as can be inferred from the fossil. It also lives in East Africa at the correct time according to genetic mutation rate timelines (9.8 mya).
Original paper
A new Late Miocene great ape from Kenya and its implications for the origins of African great apes and humans

I'm not saying that something that had similarities to ape-like beings were not found in Africa.

 

[YoursTrue]

All of these years and you still do not know what an atheist is.

So if a person says that there is no god (i.e., 'god' does not exist'), that's a negative statement?
If someone says the sun positively did not come out today, does that mean it's a positive statement?

 

[Subduction Zone]

So if a person says that there is no god (i.e., 'god' does not exist'), that's a negative statement?
If someone says the sun positively did not come out today, does that mean it's a positive statement?

You need to learn what an atheist is.

 

[sayak83]

I'm not saying that something that had similarities to ape-like beings were not found in Africa.

Then.. that was the point I was making. They have features that make them reasonable candidates as common ancestors of humans, chimps and gorillas. Genetic DNA analysis of mutation rates tag the apox. divergence time to about 7-8 million years between humans and African apes. So a common ancestor would be an ape that lived a little before 8 milion years. Most of the early hominids have been found in Africa. So it's reasonable (but not necessary) that the common ancestor lived in Africa.

And it is one set of corroborating evidence in a list of evidences for human evolution I listed in the earlier post.

What point are you making?

 

[YoursTrue]

You need to learn what an atheist is.

hmm. Here's what I said: "So if a person says that there is no god (i.e., 'god' does not exist'), that's a negative statement?
If someone says the sun positively did not come out today, does that mean it's a positive statement? " And the definition of an atheist is by most standards, someone who denies God's existence, OR, put another way, says there is no God. If a person says there is POSITIVELY NO GOD, he is an atheist. Anyway, it's how you look at it, whether it's a negative or positive statement. Especially if he says there is positively no God. Anyway -- either way -- negative or positive. There's no moon out tonight. Positive statement? Negative statement? To say there IS no God -- hmm, is that positive or negative?

 

[YoursTrue]

Then.. that was the point I was making. They have features that make them reasonable candidates as common ancestors of humans, chimps and gorillas. Genetic DNA analysis of mutation rates tag the apox. divergence time to about 7-8 million years between humans and African apes. So a common ancestor would be an ape that lived a little before 8 milion years. Most of the early hominids have been found in Africa. So it's reasonable (but not necessary) that the common ancestor lived in Africa.

And it is one set of corroborating evidence in a list of evidences for human evolution I listed in the earlier post.

What point are you making?

That a fossil that is figured to look similar to an ape of sorts does not mean evolution, or that it was an ancestral type leading to present-day humans by evolution.

 

[sayak83]

That a fossil that is figured to look similar to an ape of sorts does not mean evolution, or that it was an ancestral type leading to present-day humans by evolution.

It's a prediction of the theory that such fossils will be found somewhere in or near Africa at that time zone. They were found. So the fossils are a piece of corroborating evidence for the theory.

 

[YoursTrue]

It's a prediction of the theory that such fossils will be found somewhere in or near Africa at that time zone. They were found. So the fossils are a piece of corroborating evidence for the theory.

The theory of evolution? Not necessarily. First of all, the genetic content would have to proven. And then the evolving substances from that point on. And then what was before that genetically. Sorry, it just isn't working for me now.
Good night, time to go for now.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The theory of evolution? Not necessarily. First of all, the genetic content would have to proven. And then the evolving substances from that point on. And then what was before that genetically. Sorry, it just isn't working for me now.
Good night, time to go for now.

Why do you think the genetic content would have to be proven? It looks as if you are only looking for any argument against evolution. You need a rational argument if you want to deny it.

 

[YoursTrue]

Did you see Christ raise the dead?

Did you see God?

 

[Subduction Zone]

hmm. Here's what I said: "So if a person says that there is no god (i.e., 'god' does not exist'), that's a negative statement?
If someone says the sun positively did not come out today, does that mean it's a positive statement? " And the definition of an atheist is by most standards, someone who denies God's existence, OR, put another way, says there is no God. If a person says there is POSITIVELY NO GOD, he is an atheist. Anyway, it's how you look at it, whether it's a negative or positive statement. Especially if he says there is positively no God. Anyway -- either way -- negative or positive. There's no moon out tonight. Positive statement? Negative statement? To say there IS no God -- hmm, is that positive or negative?

An atheist is also someone that merely lacks a belief in god. There is no requirement that one must say "there is no god".

 

[YoursTrue]

Why do you think the genetic content would have to be proven? It looks as if you are only looking for any argument against evolution. You need a rational argument if you want to deny it.

The genetic content wouldn't prove evolution anyway, so can't argue there. Just like you can't "see" God, you can't "see" evolution, either by the genes or by the things around us.
And furthermore -- "When you look at the narrative for hominin origins, it’s just a big mess—there’s no consensus whatsoever,” said Sergio Almécija, a senior research scientist in the Museum’s Division of Anthropology.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I'm not saying that something that had similarities to ape-like beings were not found in Africa.

You are using incorrect terminology. You are an "ape-like being". Do you know why? Because you are an app.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The genetic content wouldn't prove evolution anyway, so can't argue there. Just like you can't "see" God, you can't "see" evolution, either by the genes or by the things around us.
And furthermore -- "When you look at the narrative for hominin origins, it’s just a big mess—there’s no consensus whatsoever,” said Sergio Almécija, a senior research scientist in the Museum’s Division of Anthropology.

So why even bring up the genetic content?

Do you remember what is and what is not evidence?

 

[YoursTrue]

An atheist is also someone that merely lacks a belief in god. There is no requirement that one must say "there is no god".

OK. I didn't question much about God until I was older. For many years I said I didn't believe in God. But now I have faith. It was a process, a wake-up period, and, if I can use a spiritual phrase, a meeting from God.

 

[Subduction Zone]

OK. I didn't question much about God until I was older. For many years I said I didn't believe in God. But now I have faith. It was a process, a wake-up period, and, if I can use a spiritual phrase, a meeting from God.

Or more likely a falling asleep process.

 

[YoursTrue]

You are using incorrect terminology. You are an "ape-like being". Do you know why? Because you are an app.

LOL, that's your belief. It's not mine any more. You want to call yourself an ape. OK. You want to call me an ape? I'd rather be called dumb. lolol...have a nice day tomorrow more or less. I mean about the term tomorrow. And day.

 

[YoursTrue]

Or more likely a falling asleep process.

Nope. These boards have really helped. Have a nice day tomorrow when dawn starts as far as I'm concerned.

 

[sayak83]

The theory of evolution? Not necessarily. First of all, the genetic content would have to proven. And then the evolving substances from that point on. And then what was before that genetically. Sorry, it just isn't working for me now.
Good night, time to go for now.

Direct observation of the mutation rates of DNA of living apes and humans provides very good evidence of the rates at which mutations occur.
Generation times in wild chimpanzees and gorillas suggest earlier divergence times in great ape and human evolution
"Here we use an alternative approach to genetic inference of species split times in recent human and ape evolution that is independent of the fossil record. We first use genetic parentage information on a large number of wild chimpanzees and mountain gorillas to directly infer their average generation times. We then compare these generation time estimates with those of humans and apply recent estimates of the human mutation rate per generation to derive estimates of split times of great apes and humans that are independent of fossil calibration. We date the human–chimpanzee split to at least 7–8 million years and the population split between Neanderthals and modern humans to 400,000–800,000 y ago."
Basic idea is this
1) We know the rates at which DNA changes from one generation to next. It can vary a bit from segment to segment but an appx. rate can be found.
2) We know how much difference there is between human and chimpanzee DNA.
3) Thus we can estimate how much time evolution will take for the differences to come by through mutation. It is 7-8 million years (+- 20%) This is a prediction.
4) Now we can check the fossil record and see if the fossil timelines match the DNA bases estimates.
5) It does. Common ancestor type apes are found around 9 million years ago (in Africa and Greece). Early transitional forms in the human line (Sahelanthropus etc.) begin to appear around 7 million years ago. The evidence matches the prediction.
6) This provides yet another corroboration for evolution.

 

[Astrophile]

I'm not saying that something that had similarities to ape-like beings were not found in Africa.

Are you also willing to accept that this great ape (because that was what it was) lived nearly ten million years ago, at a time when there were no humans anywhere on the Earth?