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

[Audie]

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

You is one imaginative dude, finding somehow
an "appeal to authority, and "Toe objections on another planet"?

And then there are your weird n wacky
ideas about evolution.

If ya dont have any knowledge, then imagination
will have to do, eh?

 

[Audie]

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.

Apparently he remembered reading the creogument about
how the ToE is so "flexible" .

One thing none of them can ever remember though is to
supply us with one solid fact contrary to ToE.

You'd think they'd just go ahead and do it!

nP, could you just do it now, get it over with?

 

[Audie]

You is one imaginative dude, finding somehow
an "appeal to authority, and "Toe objections on another planet"?

And then there are your weird n wacky
ideas about evolution.

If ya dont have any knowledge, then imagination
will have to do, eh?

Howabout instead of playing around with silly quips,
you just hit us with that killer knockout blow, one of your
facts that disprove ToE. Just one? Prease?

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Human ancestors go all the way back to the original pond scum billions of years ago.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Who said? And where is the proof for all these allegations? I have only ever seen assumptions dressed up as science. They have nothing but imagination palmed off as evidence. Its complete rubbish.

OMGosh. Follow the fossil evidence back. Look at Homo Habilis. Do you think Homo Habilis is an ape or a man? Scientists had a hard time classifying. Know why? Because it's a transitional form.

Our ancestors go all the way back to the pond scum billions of years ago.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Well, you just admitted you have to draw conclusions, yet you say you know.

I said we know what the mechanisms of reproduction are.

Do you dispute that?

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.

Now you're just babbling.

Do you or do you not understand how looking the fossil record provides compelling evidence of common descent, and absolutely no evidence for complex life forms appearing spontaneously out of nowhere?

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.

False. If we found the fossilized remains of an organism alongside its distant evolutionary ancestors, that would be a significant blow to the theory. Also, if we discovered DNA was partially inflexible or genetic variation was very strictly limited, it would destroy the theory.

So, imo, that's what you have. It's like a magical toy.
I don't mind you or others wanting that.

You seem to have completely avoided everything I wrote.

Do you believe species magically appear, fully formed, out of nothing?

 

[Deeje]

OMGosh. Follow the fossil evidence back. Look at Homo Habilis. Do you think Homo Habilis is an ape or a man? Scientists had a hard time classifying. Know why? Because it's a transitional form.

Our ancestors go all the way back to the pond scum billions of years ago.

Please provide the evidence for pond scum becoming every kind of living thing....

 

[Subduction Zone]

Please provide the evidence for pond scum becoming every kind of living thing....

Deeje, you are one of the creationists that refuses to learn what evidence is.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Please provide the evidence for pond scum becoming every kind of living thing....

OMGosh that would be an entire book. Go to Amazon.com and get a book on Evolution. There are many to choose from.

 

[sealchan]

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.

Not quite sure but I appreciate the effort.

I think though that you are saying that evolution occurs when a species changes into another species, is that correct?

If so then to that I would say, technically one species never changes into another species. What happens is the population of a species separates into two or more isolated populations and these isolated populations undergo different environmental pressures causing them, perhaps, to slightly diverge but not necessarily to become a wholly separate species that couldnt mate with the other species.

For example, I live on the west side of the Cascade Mountains. On the much drier east side the Ponderosa Pine which grows plentifully. On the west side there is an isolated population of Ponderosa Pine that has adapted to growing in much more wet soil conditions. This shows that some spread of the happy with dry conditions tree into the wetter area occurred and that population was able to evolve. Probably if you planted one of each tree right next to each other they would cross pollinate just fine.

Those species that are much more different, let's say a Ponderosa and a Lodgpole Pine, they probably can be seen to have a shared history only you would have to go much farther back. Probably the more differences in DNA the further back you would have to go. The time it took for those two species to become different from each other probably required a number of changes in environmental conditions. At some point their DNA changed enough that cross-pollination wouldn't work to produce viable seed.

To see that sort of change theorists fully expect it would take far longer than the history of science itself so far. It would be in the range of thousands of years. The best we can do is look at the cross section of today's species and at the fossil record. The fossil record apparently suggests that today's species represents less than one percent of all the species that there ever were. So there has been a lot of reconfiguration going on.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Not quite sure but I appreciate the effort.

I think though that you are saying that evolution occurs when a species changes into another species, is that correct?

If so then to that I would say, technically one species never changes into another species. What happens is the population of a species separates into two or more isolated populations and these isolated populations undergo different environmental pressures causing them, perhaps, to slightly diverge but not necessarily to become a wholly separate species that couldnt mate with the other species.

For example, I live on the west side of the Cascade Mountains. On the much drier east side the Ponderosa Pine which grows plentifully. On the west side there is an isolated population of Ponderosa Pine that has adapted to growing in much more wet soil conditions. This shows that some spread of the happy with dry conditions tree into the wetter area occurred and that population was able to evolve. Probably if you planted one of each tree right next to each other they would cross pollinate just fine.

Those species that are much more different, let's say a Ponderosa and a Lodgpole Pine, they probably can be seen to have a shared history only you would have to go much farther back. Probably the more differences in DNA the further back you would have to go. The time it took for those two species to become different from each other probably required a number of changes in environmental conditions.

You do understand that we have examples of divergences where the new populations can no longer cross pollinate, right?

 

[sealchan]

You do understand that we have examples of divergences where the new populations can no longer cross pollinate, right?

I dont. But I wasn't meaning to exclude that possibilty. Can you send me a link or search terms so I can educate myself?

 

[IndigoChild5559]

I dont. But I wasn't meaning to exclude that possibilty. Can you send me a link or search terms so I can educate myself?

Try looking into the Shetland Monkeyflower. It has reproductive isolation and its genome is double that of the regular monkeyflower. It has evolved in the last 200 years and is so new that it has not even received a scientific name yet.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You do understand that we have examples of divergences where the new populations can no longer cross pollinate, right?

And when it comes to animal species we have examples of it in progress. Ring species shows this in real time.

 

[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.

I think scientists at one time believed in that idea, until it was demonstrated to be wrong.
I believe life was created. That does not mean popped 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.

So, if you believe #1, then I would think there is a problem - What reproduced to produce the first reproducing ancestor?
Looking at the fossil record does not show what you say, but I understand we wil not move past this for the next 180 years.
Abrupt appearance of major bilaterian clades in the fossil record during the first three stages of the Cambrian Period has puzzled the scientific world since 1830s.

But modern genetics has revealed that representing evolutionary history as a tree is misleading, with scientists saying a more realistic way to represent the origins and inter-relatedness of species would be an impenetrable thicket.

Evolution is far too complex to be explained by a few roots and branches, [scientists] claim.

Biology currently lacks a robust and comprehensive description of early evolution. We should aim to fill that void, but in a language that operates with biology and chemistry, not with branching patterns in phylogenetic trees, versions of which based on informational genes are called the tree of life.

After 180 years, we still have a rootless tree, and still can't figure out how we got branches, yet you think everything is smooth.

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.

I don't recall saying I presume any such thing.
What I recall saying, was this...
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.

The one who propose the theory in 1859 in his book "On the Origin of Species", is the one who acknowledged the many features of the theory that are missing, including the slow and gradual process.
Did I say something that isn't true?

Maybe an entirely new makeover is on the tables, but I am only going by what was proposed.

 

[Deeje]

OMGosh that would be an entire book. Go to Amazon.com and get a book on Evolution. There are many to choose from.

I have read every reference ever given to me by evolutionists in support of their pet theory.....none of them amount to a hill of beans because of the fundamental flaw in their argument. No experiment or observation ever made by science does anything but infer what "might have" or "could have" or "must have" taken place in the dim, dark past. I can use those same terms with creation and with exactly the same "evidence" and come to an opposite conclusion. It's all in the interpretation....and more importantly, where your heart is.

True science supports the Bible and the Bible supports true science because they have the same author.

It amazes me how quick some believers are to abandon the Creator and adopt a godless theory because it might make them appear to be 'ignorant' or even worse......'uneducated'!

 

[nPeace]

I said we know what the mechanisms of reproduction are.

Do you dispute that?


Now you're just babbling.

Do you or do you not understand how looking the fossil record provides compelling evidence of common descent, and absolutely no evidence for complex life forms appearing spontaneously out of nowhere?

I do understand how the fossil record is interpreted. Do you understand that?

False. If we found the fossilized remains of an organism alongside its distant evolutionary ancestors, that would be a significant blow to the theory. Also, if we discovered DNA was partially inflexible or genetic variation was very strictly limited, it would destroy the theory.

I have heard the ifs before, and the theory is still standing.
On the Origin of Species
By the theory of natural selection all living species have been connected with the parent-species of each genus, by differences not greater than we see between the varieties of the same species at the present day; and these parent-species, now generally extinct, have in their turn been similarly connected with more ancient species; and so on backwards, always converging to the common ancestor of each great class. So that the number of intermediate and transitional links, between all living and extinct species, must have been inconceivably great. But assuredly, if this theory be true, such have lived upon this earth.

If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.

You seem to have completely avoided everything I wrote.

Do you believe species magically appear, fully formed, out of nothing?

Sorry. I didn't mean to. I was quite tired at the time.
No, I don't believe species magically appear, fully formed, out of nothing.

 

[nPeace]

Not quite sure but I appreciate the effort.

I think though that you are saying that evolution occurs when a species changes into another species, is that correct?

Why does it have to be a species? I did not say that, No.

If so then to that I would say, technically one species never changes into another species. What happens is the population of a species separates into two or more isolated populations and these isolated populations undergo different environmental pressures causing them, perhaps, to slightly diverge but not necessarily to become a wholly separate species that couldnt mate with the other species.

For example, I live on the west side of the Cascade Mountains. On the much drier east side the Ponderosa Pine which grows plentifully. On the west side there is an isolated population of Ponderosa Pine that has adapted to growing in much more wet soil conditions. This shows that some spread of the happy with dry conditions tree into the wetter area occurred and that population was able to evolve. Probably if you planted one of each tree right next to each other they would cross pollinate just fine.

Those species that are much more different, let's say a Ponderosa and a Lodgpole Pine, they probably can be seen to have a shared history only you would have to go much farther back. Probably the more differences in DNA the further back you would have to go. The time it took for those two species to become different from each other probably required a number of changes in environmental conditions. At some point their DNA changed enough that cross-pollination wouldn't work to produce viable seed.

To me, it's a speculation to determine that one organism is more distant or closer to another based on DNA. Every living thing has its own DNA makeup.
We don't determine that different artists must have painted pictures based on the quantity of paint distributed on the canvas.
If organisms are designed with a specified makeup, I would expect, like any designed object, they would differ from one make to another - either closer, or further apart.

To see that sort of change theorists fully expect it would take far longer than the history of science itself so far. It would be in the range of thousands of years. The best we can do is look at the cross section of today's species and at the fossil record. The fossil record apparently suggests that today's species represents less than one percent of all the species that there ever were. So there has been a lot of reconfiguration going on.

You are referring to one population, as opposed to many.
Let's refine it.
When scientists collect organisms, and take them to their labs, do you consider that a population?
If we extend that in nature, many populations exists in many areas. Within these populations evolution takes place - not at the same time. This is repeated.
So say, we have evolution taking place within a span of just a few thousands of years. Since there are a number of populations, and evolving at different times, we don't need to wait for those few thousand years to see it, do we?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I think scientists at one time believed in that idea, until it was demonstrated to be wrong.
I believe life was created. That does not mean popped out of thin air.

Spontaneous generation is more of a creationist idea than a scientific one, so I am glad that you can see its flaws. Of course then you screw up by implying that abiogenesis is similar to spontaneous generation. It is not, but you would have a lot of learning to do.

So, if you believe #1, then I would think there is a problem - What reproduced to produce the first reproducing ancestor?
Looking at the fossil record does not show what you say, but I understand we wil not move past this for the next 180 years.
Abrupt appearance of major bilaterian clades in the fossil record during the first three stages of the Cambrian Period has puzzled the scientific world since 1830s.

Oops, there you go again, conflating a creationist idea, spontaneous generation, with a scientific one, that of abiogenesis.

But modern genetics has revealed that representing evolutionary history as a tree is misleading, with scientists saying a more realistic way to represent the origins and inter-relatedness of species would be an impenetrable thicket.

Evolution is far too complex to be explained by a few roots and branches, [scientists] claim.

Biology currently lacks a robust and comprehensive description of early evolution. We should aim to fill that void, but in a language that operates with biology and chemistry, not with branching patterns in phylogenetic trees, versions of which based on informational genes are called the tree of life.

After 180 years, we still have a rootless tree, and still can't figure out how we got branches, yet you think everything is smooth.

Quote mining an article that you do not understand does not help you. At the base of the tree of life it is rather complex. Genes are swapped between quite a few different single celled organisms so a simple tree does not work at the base for an apt metaphor. But like it or not it still works very well for the most part for multicellular life. This is an act of desperation of yours.

I don't recall saying I presume any such thing.
What I recall saying, was this...
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.

The one who propose the theory in 1859 in his book "On the Origin of Species", is the one who acknowledged the many features of the theory that are missing, including the slow and gradual process.
Did I say something that isn't true?

Maybe an entirely new makeover is on the tables, but I am only going by what was proposed.

You can't make false claims about others. Missing transitional forms have never been swept under the rug. That is a creationist lie. When they exist they have been acknowledged. What creationists will not admit is that an amazing number of so called "gaps" have been filled. Also like it or not every new find of a fossil is a chance to refute the theory of evolution and yet every fossil fits just fine into the tree of life, and yes, by the time that an organism is large enough to leave a fossil the tree analogy works.

Tell us what are these supposed missing features?

 

[IndigoChild5559]

I have read every reference ever given to me by evolutionists in support of their pet theory.....none of them amount to a hill of beans because of the fundamental flaw in their argument. No experiment or observation ever made by science does anything but infer what "might have" or "could have" or "must have" taken place in the dim, dark past. I can use those same terms with creation and with exactly the same "evidence" and come to an opposite conclusion. It's all in the interpretation....and more importantly, where your heart is.

True science supports the Bible and the Bible supports true science because they have the same author.

It amazes me how quick some believers are to abandon the Creator and adopt a godless theory because it might make them appear to be 'ignorant' or even worse......'uneducated'!

What is this "fundamental flaw?"