Remarkably complete’ 3.8-million-year-old cranium of human ancestor discovered in Ethiopia

[Jose Fly]

Yet they use the devil's language (evidence) in their arguments. Seems like hypocrisy to me.

It is rather hypocritical. On one hand they claim science is a "fraud factory" and that we can't trust "the reasoning of men", but then they'll say (sometimes in the same post) that science supports their creationist beliefs!

But that's consistent with the overall behaviors of creationists, where they say whatever is needed to maintain their position at any given point in time, with no thought at all as to whether it fits with things they've said before.

As a believer the one thought that keeps my mind most open and yet keen to discern the truth is this: what can be more true than what has actually happened in God's creation? Not what is considered Holy or Perfect...but what has actually happened. Surely a real God will be the God of reality and not story or dogma understood by humans.

I've asked that sort of thing to creationists before.....if God created the earth and its life, doesn't that mean that the best way to figure out what happened and how it works is to study the earth and its life? But with creationists, who are usually more towards the fundamentalist side of things, the only thing that really matters is what the Bible says. That's why "The Bible says it, I believe it, and that settles it" is such an accurate stereotype.

 

[sealchan]

It is rather hypocritical. On one hand they claim science is a "fraud factory" and that we can't trust "the reasoning of men", but then they'll say (sometimes in the same post) that science supports their creationist beliefs!

But that's consistent with the overall behaviors of creationists, where they say whatever is needed to maintain their position at any given point in time, with no thought at all as to whether it fits with things they've said before.


I've asked that sort of thing to creationists before.....if God created the earth and its life, doesn't that mean that the best way to figure out what happened and how it works is to study the earth and its life? But with creationists, who are usually more towards the fundamentalist side of things, the only thing that really matters is what the Bible says. That's why "The Bible says it, I believe it, and that settles it" is such an accurate stereotype.

In my simplest formulation, I believe that literalism is the most Satanic thing to come out of religion and it needs desperately to be exorcised.

 

[Jose Fly]

In my simplest formulation, I believe that literalism is the most Satanic thing to come out of religion and it needs desperately to be exorcised.

I used to say something like.....If I were Satan and Christianity were the one true religion, I'd become a Christian and do everything I can to associate the faith with young-earth creationism, thereby making it so absurd few would be willing to believe it or belong to it.

 

[Astrophile]

The fact is, one has to believe that the circumstantial evidence supports the theory of evolution, but really circumstantial evidence is never tied to one belief.
The evidence does not even strongly support the theory.
It is so weak as to be non-existent, and I have said this perhaps more than 50 times on these forums.
Not I alone, but many on these forums have shown that to be the case, and all the believers in the theory seem able to do is complain about religion.

What would you accept as valid evidence for evolution?

 

[nPeace]

What would you accept as valid evidence for evolution?

I suppose it would be similar to what you might ask for as valid evidence for an intelligent designer.

I would say, for one thing...
We don't see evolution (i.e. evolution as explained by Darwin - life diverging from one common ancestor) taking place today.

If it were true, this is what I expect we would see despite the slow process, or the fast (as there are two ideas. They don't seem sure).
Since all organisms don't start evolving at the same time, and end at the same time, each would be evolving at different periods of time right?
So for example, say one started evolving at 3 million years, another might start at 3.05 mil.; another 3.07 mil., another 3.12 mil. etc. Reproduction is a constant process, taking very insignificantly tiny breaks.
As I understand, evolution is still taking place constantly, and as I am told, does not require environmental changes.
So evolution would be taking place actually the same way we see trees bearing, or organisms giving birth - one tree starts at this time, another starts some time after...

Why don't we see this?

 

[Polymath257]

I suppose it would be similar to what you might ask for as valid evidence for an intelligent designer.

I can think of several things that could be evidence for a designer.

1. A message in the cosmic background radiation that encodes the first chapter of Genesis.

2. Synchronized pulsars that, when viewed from Earth, produce the symbols for YHWH.

3. A stretch of DNA that is present and preserved in all life that encodes a protein that, when folded, is the image of Jesus and has no other role.

I would say, for one thing...
We don't see evolution (i.e. evolution as explained by Darwin - life diverging from one common ancestor) taking place today.

If it were true, this is what I expect we would see despite the slow process, or the fast (as there are two ideas. They don't seem sure).

But we *have* seen new species form.

Since all organisms don't start evolving at the same time, and end at the same time, each would be evolving at different periods of time right?

This makes no sense. Could you explain in more detail? Why do you think that organisms start evolving at different times?

So for example, say one started evolving at 3 million years, another might start at 3.05 mil.; another 3.07 mil., another 3.12 mil. etc. Reproduction is a constant process, taking very insignificantly tiny breaks.

There is a misunderstanding here, but it's difficult to figure out what you actually are thinking.

Why would you think that different organisms start evolving at different times??

As I understand, evolution is still taking place constantly, and as I am told, does not require environmental changes.
So evolution would be taking place actually the same way we see trees bearing, or organisms giving birth - one tree starts at this time, another starts some time after...

Why don't we see this?

I am really not understanding what you are saying here. Evolution isn't a process that happens in one individual. It is a process that happens in populations over generations. So all species are changing from one generation to the next, subject to environmental changes to be adapted to.

It isn't quite clear to me what you think the theory of evolution actually says should happen. maybe if you give your understanding of the process we can help to clear the misunderstandings.

 

[sealchan]

I suppose it would be similar to what you might ask for as valid evidence for an intelligent designer.

I would say, for one thing...
We don't see evolution (i.e. evolution as explained by Darwin - life diverging from one common ancestor) taking place today.

If it were true, this is what I expect we would see despite the slow process, or the fast (as there are two ideas. They don't seem sure).
Since all organisms don't start evolving at the same time, and end at the same time, each would be evolving at different periods of time right?
So for example, say one started evolving at 3 million years, another might start at 3.05 mil.; another 3.07 mil., another 3.12 mil. etc. Reproduction is a constant process, taking very insignificantly tiny breaks.
As I understand, evolution is still taking place constantly, and as I am told, does not require environmental changes.
So evolution would be taking place actually the same way we see trees bearing, or organisms giving birth - one tree starts at this time, another starts some time after...

Why don't we see this?

In response to this and Polymath's response...evolution takes place at many levels and is always occurring. But I think that there are two things that are not often said that are important to point out so that our intuitions are more properly aligned.

One is that, as Polymath indicated, a species best not thought of in individual terms but rather in terms of a population of individuals spread out over a region in which their is a significant level of reproductive interaction. That population will tend to create a sort of genetic center of gravity such that even if the genetic makeup changed over time for that population they would always continue to be the same species. This is how one species evolves into another, not through Adam and Eve but through a genetically diverse population of interbreeding individuals.

Furthermore, while this slow progression is going on within continuous populations of interbreeders, other populations of similar species that are not directly interbreeding are evolving in slightly different directions. Sudden catastrophic changes at various levels may cause they removal of one or more of these entire populations leaving "gaps" between similar species. A gap can form even as two species whose collective parentage was once the same have become isolated and easily distinguished.

This is seen clearly with human races which are now more and more interbreeding across old boundaries which geography used to maintain. Bird species also seen to be adept at creating separate species based on small differences through coloration or feeding habits or whatnot that keep them interbreeding independently even in each others midst.

The other idea is that it does take a long time to create a truly separate species and that is something which cannot be reproduced in a lab in any short span of time. I have a deep suspicion that the emergence of any great familiy of species goes back quite far...and even the emergence of water-breathing species to the land likely happened via multiple species rather than just one. Certainly there was no one single individual certainly but also not one single species that made that transition. In the same way there was not just one species of human-like ape but many. Subsequent events like disease or direct competition as the species flourished and failed to interbreed then introduced gaps in variability. And now we are left with one racially diverse species with perhaps one or two legendary holdouts hiding in the woods.

 

[Astrophile]

I suppose it would be similar to what you might ask for as valid evidence for an intelligent designer.

This is an easy condition. As I understand it, the advocates of intelligent design (particularly Professor Behe) assert that there are irreducibly complex systems in living things and that these systems cannot have come about by an evolutionary process and therefore must be the products of conscious design. Since I am not a biologist, I must accept the authority of biologists; if, for example, more than 35-40% of professional biologists accepted the truth of these assertions, I should have to agree that there was something in the intelligent design hypothesis.

It is the same as the question of the historicity of Jesus. Nearly all historians, regardless of their religion, agree that Jesus was a real person, so I accept their authority on this point.

Are you willing to do the same thing? Are you willing to accept the consensus of professional geologists on the age of the Earth (4540±20 million years) and the consensus of biologists on the reality of evolution?

The biological evidence that convinces me of the reality of evolution is the genetic evidence, the nested hierarchy of living things derived from both comparative anatomy and genetics; and the biogeographic evidence. The fossil evidence also shows that living things have changed radically over time, from the Cambrian period and earlier to the present day. Since all modern living things must have had ancestors that lived during the Cambrian period, it follows that modern living things must be descended from ancestors that were very different from them.

I would say, for one thing...
We don't see evolution (i.e. evolution as explained by Darwin - life diverging from one common ancestor) taking place today.

I would say that we do see this in the fossil record, which shows the diversification of living things from Precambrian times to the present day.

If it were true, this is what I expect we would see despite the slow process, or the fast (as there are two ideas. They don't seem sure).
Since all organisms don't start evolving at the same time, and end at the same time, each would be evolving at different periods of time right?
So for example, say one started evolving at 3 million years, another might start at 3.05 mil.; another 3.07 mil., another 3.12 mil. etc. Reproduction is a constant process, taking very insignificantly tiny breaks.
As I understand, evolution is still taking place constantly, and as I am told, does not require environmental changes.
So evolution would be taking place actually the same way we see trees bearing, or organisms giving birth - one tree starts at this time, another starts some time after...

Why don't we see this?

Like Polymath257, I do not understand what you mean by this. As I understand it all populations are evolving all the time.

 

[Jose Fly]

So nPeace writes another post where the collective response is "Um........huh?"

I'm shocked!

 

[Audie]

I suppose it would be similar to what you might ask for as valid evidence for an intelligent designer.

I would say, for one thing...
We don't see evolution (i.e. evolution as explained by Darwin - life diverging from one common ancestor) taking place today.

If it were true, this is what I expect we would see despite the slow process, or the fast (as there are two ideas. They don't seem sure).
Since all organisms don't start evolving at the same time, and end at the same time, each would be evolving at different periods of time right?
So for example, say one started evolving at 3 million years, another might start at 3.05 mil.; another 3.07 mil., another 3.12 mil. etc. Reproduction is a constant process, taking very insignificantly tiny breaks.
As I understand, evolution is still taking place constantly, and as I am told, does not require environmental changes.
So evolution would be taking place actually the same way we see trees bearing, or organisms giving birth - one tree starts at this time, another starts some time after...

Why don't we see this?

Of course you dont see that, and of course you do not
believe the weird version of evolution you invented.
Nobody would!

Aka strawman.

Too bad. If you actually knew what you were talking about,
I expect you'd quit talkingm as nobody on earth has ever yet
found any flaw in ToE.

 

[nPeace]

I can think of several things that could be evidence for a designer.

1. A message in the cosmic background radiation that encodes the first chapter of Genesis.

2. Synchronized pulsars that, when viewed from Earth, produce the symbols for YHWH.

3. A stretch of DNA that is present and preserved in all life that encodes a protein that, when folded, is the image of Jesus and has no other role.



But we *have* seen new species form.



This makes no sense. Could you explain in more detail? Why do you think that organisms start evolving at different times?



There is a misunderstanding here, but it's difficult to figure out what you actually are thinking.

Why would you think that different organisms start evolving at different times??


I am really not understanding what you are saying here. Evolution isn't a process that happens in one individual. It is a process that happens in populations over generations. So all species are changing from one generation to the next, subject to environmental changes to be adapted to.

It isn't quite clear to me what you think the theory of evolution actually says should happen. maybe if you give your understanding of the process we can help to clear the misunderstandings.

Can you define species?
Does not reproduction, gene flow, natural selection, etc., occur at different times? Why not evolution?

 

[nPeace]

Of course you dont see that, and of course you do not
believe the weird version of evolution you invented.
Nobody would!

Aka strawman.

Too bad. If you actually knew what you were talking about,
I expect you'd quit talkingm as nobody on earth has ever yet
found any flaw in ToE.

Appeal to authority.
I was not aware all ToE objectors resided on another planet... and all along, I thought this was earth.

 

[nPeace]

In response to this and Polymath's response...evolution takes place at many levels and is always occurring. But I think that there are two things that are not often said that are important to point out so that our intuitions are more properly aligned.

One is that, as Polymath indicated, a species best not thought of in individual terms but rather in terms of a population of individuals spread out over a region in which their is a significant level of reproductive interaction. That population will tend to create a sort of genetic center of gravity such that even if the genetic makeup changed over time for that population they would always continue to be the same species. This is how one species evolves into another, not through Adam and Eve but through a genetically diverse population of interbreeding individuals.

Furthermore, while this slow progression is going on within continuous populations of interbreeders, other populations of similar species that are not directly interbreeding are evolving in slightly different directions. Sudden catastrophic changes at various levels may cause they removal of one or more of these entire populations leaving "gaps" between similar species. A gap can form even as two species whose collective parentage was once the same have become isolated and easily distinguished.

This is seen clearly with human races which are now more and more interbreeding across old boundaries which geography used to maintain. Bird species also seen to be adept at creating separate species based on small differences through coloration or feeding habits or whatnot that keep them interbreeding independently even in each others midst.

The other idea is that it does take a long time to create a truly separate species and that is something which cannot be reproduced in a lab in any short span of time. I have a deep suspicion that the emergence of any great familiy of species goes back quite far...and even the emergence of water-breathing species to the land likely happened via multiple species rather than just one. Certainly there was no one single individual certainly but also not one single species that made that transition. In the same way there was not just one species of human-like ape but many. Subsequent events like disease or direct competition as the species flourished and failed to interbreed then introduced gaps in variability. And now we are left with one racially diverse species with perhaps one or two legendary holdouts hiding in the woods.

Are you saying populations are small, so small that we cannot have evolution taking place simultaneously?

 

[nPeace]

This is an easy condition. As I understand it, the advocates of intelligent design (particularly Professor Behe) assert that there are irreducibly complex systems in living things and that these systems cannot have come about by an evolutionary process and therefore must be the products of conscious design. Since I am not a biologist, I must accept the authority of biologists; if, for example, more than 35-40% of professional biologists accepted the truth of these assertions, I should have to agree that there was something in the intelligent design hypothesis.

It is the same as the question of the historicity of Jesus. Nearly all historians, regardless of their religion, agree that Jesus was a real person, so I accept their authority on this point.

Are you willing to do the same thing? Are you willing to accept the consensus of professional geologists on the age of the Earth (4540±20 million years) and the consensus of biologists on the reality of evolution?

The biological evidence that convinces me of the reality of evolution is the genetic evidence, the nested hierarchy of living things derived from both comparative anatomy and genetics; and the biogeographic evidence. The fossil evidence also shows that living things have changed radically over time, from the Cambrian period and earlier to the present day. Since all modern living things must have had ancestors that lived during the Cambrian period, it follows that modern living things must be descended from ancestors that were very different from them.



I would say that we do see this in the fossil record, which shows the diversification of living things from Precambrian times to the present day.



Like Polymath257, I do not understand what you mean by this. As I understand it all populations are evolving all the time.

For one thing, we humans are diverse in our thinking.
While one person may let consensus be his guide to truth, another person may not. I don't.

Thanks for acknowledging that one would have to rely on the fossil record, in order to "see" evolution as having taken place.
This is where the major problem lies, imo. The fossil record shows all major life forms arriving on the scene, fully formed, and leaving the scene with little or no change.
Aside from that, are the many inferences made which basically are made to represent a hypothesis, or idea.
The problems to the theory, namely the millions of missing transitions, have been "swept under the rug", and many "band=aids put on the sores", so in my view, the theory is actually like a broken toy, fixed up to look nice for the little children to come in and buy.

Hence, I see no evidence in support of the theory. I think others only see what persons want to refer to as evidence.
Thank you.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Can you define species?
Does not reproduction, gene flow, natural selection, etc., occur at different times? Why not evolution?

Evolution is always happening. Why do creationists make the error of assuming that it quits? Evolution can occur at varying rates. For example a large healthy population will evolve very slowly. But an event that greatly increases selection, and which also greatly reduces the population can increase the rate of evolution. In that case natu selection can be very similar to artificial selection.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Thanks for acknowledging that one would have to rely on the fossil record, in order to "see" evolution as having taken place.
This is where the major problem lies, imo. The fossil record shows all major life forms arriving on the scene, fully formed, and leaving the scene with little or no change.

Only if you believe that complex life spontaneously appears, "fully formed" out of nowhere before blipping out of existence and then another form of life that - completely by coincidence - happens to bear a lot of physiological similarities to the previous "fully formed" life form spontaneously appeared out of nowhere and blipping out of existence itself, and that this process repeated for millions of years until relatively recently when it suddenly stopped for apparently no reason whatsoever. None of this has ever been observed, and we have no reason to believe that entire populations of complex animals can appear spontaneously out of thin air.

If, however, you understand two things:
1) The only known and understood mechanism of complex living things coming into existence is reproduction, and
2) The only known and understood mechanism for complex living organisms to share physiological or genetic traits is common ancestry,
Then you realize that looking at the fossil record shows a clear and unambiguous progression of diversification of living populations.

Aside from that, are the many inferences made which basically are made to represent a hypothesis, or idea.
The problems to the theory, namely the millions of missing transitions, have been "swept under the rug", and many "band=aids put on the sores", so in my view, the theory is actually like a broken toy, fixed up to look nice for the little children to come in and buy.

Do you presume that we need examples of every single generation of every single species that has ever lived before we can safely conclude that the thousands upon thousands of examples we have show clear diversification of species? This is obviously unreasonable. Just because we don't have a complete picture doesn't mean we can't reasonably draw conclusions from the evidence we have, and the only reasonable conclusion of the thousands of examples we have is that they are explained by common ancestry.

 

[sealchan]

Are you saying populations are small, so small that we cannot have evolution taking place simultaneously?

I'm afraid I'm not understanding this question.

A simpler way of saying what I've said is that individuals cannot create a new species, only a small or larger population of interbreeding individuals can or an environment acting on that population.

 

[nPeace]

Only if you believe that complex life spontaneously appears, "fully formed" out of nowhere before blipping out of existence and then another form of life that - completely by coincidence - happens to bear a lot of physiological similarities to the previous "fully formed" life form spontaneously appeared out of nowhere and blipping out of existence itself, and that this process repeated for millions of years until relatively recently when it suddenly stopped for apparently no reason whatsoever. None of this has ever been observed, and we have no reason to believe that entire populations of complex animals can appear spontaneously out of thin air.

If, however, you understand two things:
1) The only known and understood mechanism of complex living things coming into existence is reproduction, and
2) The only known and understood mechanism for complex living organisms to share physiological or genetic traits is common ancestry,
Then you realize that looking at the fossil record shows a clear and unambiguous progression of diversification of living populations.


Do you presume that we need examples of every single generation of every single species that has ever lived before we can safely conclude that the thousands upon thousands of examples we have show clear diversification of species? This is obviously unreasonable. Just because we don't have a complete picture doesn't mean we can't reasonably draw conclusions from the evidence we have, and the only reasonable conclusion of the thousands of examples we have is that they are explained by common ancestry.

Well, you just admitted you have to draw conclusions, yet you say you know.
If it were, they did not need to make inference for basically everything, and build those on ideas, and everything fitted together like a jigsaw puzzle, without having to get a cutter, and clip some of the pieces, and cut their own, I could appreciate that the case would look as though it had likely been solved, but that's not the case.
The theory is so flexible - like an elastic plate, or play dough, it can flex to fit anything, and allow for anything to fit it.
So, imo, that's what you have. It's like a magical toy.
I don't mind you or others wanting that.

 

[nPeace]

I'm afraid I'm not understanding this question.

A simpler way of saying what I've said is that individuals cannot create a new species, only a small or larger population of interbreeding individuals can or an environment acting on that population.

Right, and what I am asking is, is that population so small (not meaning the size of the population).... so perhaps it's better I say, are you saying, the number of populations are so small, that evolution cannot occur within numerous populations simultaneously?
Hope that's clearer.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well, you just admitted you have to draw conclusions, yet you say you know.
If it were, they did not need to make inference for basically everything, and build those on ideas, and everything fitted together like a jigsaw puzzle, without having to get a cutter, and clip some of the pieces, and cut their own, I could appreciate that the case would look as though it had likely been solved, but that's not the case.
The theory is so flexible - like an elastic plate, or play dough, it can flex to fit anything, and allow for anything to fit it.
So, imo, that's what you have. It's like a magical toy.
I don't mind you or others wanting that.

You are partly right. Everything does fit together perfectly when one uses the theory of evolution. But no, it is not flexible. It is falsifiable. There are countless ways that it could be shown to be wrong if it is wrong. The fact that it has not is very strong evidence that it is correct. And you keep forgetting, you are the one that believes in magic. There is no falsifiable test for your God. That is because you claim that he is magical. And you claim that he is dishonest as well, though you do not seem to realize that.

Too bad you don't remember the claims of creationists before DNA was sequenced. They were sure that it would refute the theory of evolution. Biologists knew that it could refute it too, but they were not too worried. Though already knew that there was a huge amount of evidence for the theory. What they were looking forward to were the answers that DNA could answer for them. And that was what they found. Another endless supply of evidence for evolution and answers to some of the questions that they had not been able to answer yet.