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

[metis]

Anyone who thinks that science and religion are pretty much the same either don't understand science or maybe even religion. Religion does not rely or even use the "scientific method" for its main beliefs, whereas in science it is absolutely essential. When JW's conflate the two, they are being ignorant of this and/or just being dishonest.

 

[Sand Dancer]

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.

Why disregard science, which always strives to learn new things, and take the Bible, which was birthed in Bronze age times and won't update with new knowledge?

 

[Jose Fly]

Why disregard science, which always strives to learn new things, and take the Bible, which was birthed in Bronze age times and won't update with new knowledge?

She's a Jehovah's Witness, and views everything associated with evolutionary biology through the following prism....

https://www.jw.org/en/publications/books/teen-questions/should-i-believe-in-evolution/

"If evolution is true, life has no lasting purpose. If creation is true, we can find satisfying answers to questions about life and the future."​

 

[SkepticThinker]

Not in any way is that remotely true.
The fossil record is a record of a very small sampling of life on earth in the early days. Probably most, almost all life on earth could not leave fossil remains, including man in that former nature! That means that the fossil record is say, 5% or some other small tiny fraction of what was alive. It also means that at the same time that these fossils were formed (of creatures that, for whatever reasons..could leave fossilized remain in that former time)--man and lions and wolves and etc etc etc etc also existed! The absences of man and animals does not mean they were not also here! It just means they could not leave remains. God said to Adam, for example...'from dust you came, and to dust you will return'. (not to fossilized remains)

Correct. Men and animals could adapt at lightning speeds in the former nature and for all we know, while still alive, rather than only via offspring!

Your inability to grasp the immensity of the issues in no way represents inconsistency on my part!

Your same nature in the past is not a falsifiable belief.

Stick to what is known. If you don't know either way do not predicate endless and godless origin fables on it being one way or the other!

Ignoring the almost universal spiritual experiences of man due to poor science being to pathetic to detect it is sad.

More claims with absolutely no evidence whatsoever.

By the way, you are aware that the evidence for evolution extends far beyond just the fossil record, right?

 

[SkepticThinker]

I accept the bible record. If you claim lives were shorter let's see the case. The link you gave deals with current times, not the ancient times. Gong!

The existing evidence does not indicate in any way that humans used to live for hundreds of years. If you want to make the claim, you need to find the evidence that backs your claim.

If you accept the Bible stories about ages, then you are accepting claims lacking in evidence. Which is your choice. But it's not anywhere near good enough for evidence-minded people, like myself. We could just as easily claim that Thor creates lightning based on ancient stories in old books. That's if we're just believing whatever we want to.

The links I provided spoke about the past and present. You really need to read up on some actual science.

 

[tas8831]

Not in any way is that remotely true.

It is entirely true.

The fossil record is a record of a very small sampling of life on earth in the early days.

Yup. And even in that sampling we see a clear progression in forms, both morphologically and temporally.

It is truly crazy to think that it is the result of a single event.

Men and animals could adapt at lightning speeds in the former nature and for all we know, while still alive, rather than only via offspring!

Unsupported assertions are so clever.

Please provide the biological mechanism and supporting evidence that "Men and animals could adapt at lightning speeds in the former nature".

I suspect you will just blabber about how things were different 4000 years ago, but there is no evidence for that either.

Your inability to grasp the immensity of the issues in no way represents inconsistency on my part!

Wow, OK, I have to take a rest after that pure comedic gold...

 

[Ouroboros]

She's a Jehovah's Witness, and views everything associated with evolutionary biology through the following prism....

https://www.jw.org/en/publications/books/teen-questions/should-i-believe-in-evolution/

"If evolution is true, life has no lasting purpose. If creation is true, we can find satisfying answers to questions about life and the future."​

There's no wrong in believing that God created the world. The stupidity is to claim that he/she/it did it a way that contradicts the evidence. I've said it before that evolution would be a very smart way of a God to produce (create) a world. Using procedural generated assets is a thing now in games. Evolution is just a very advanced procedure. When they keep on insisting that God couldn't have used a very smart method but must've used his hands and molded clay, it sounds to me that they're downplaying God's intelligence. God can only be real if he's a skilled carpenter and a creatvie artist, but not very smart in math or computers.

 

[dad]

More claims with absolutely no evidence whatsoever.

By the way, you are aware that the evidence for evolution extends far beyond just the fossil record, right?

Ha...your religion has more?

 

[dad]

More claims with absolutely no evidence whatsoever.

By the way, you are aware that the evidence for evolution extends far beyond just the fossil record, right?

Ha...your religion has more?

 

[dad]

The existing evidence does not indicate in any way that humans used to live for hundreds of years. If you want to make the claim, you need to find the evidence that backs your claim.

There is not even evidence science has that humans lived at all in the time in question. That does not mean much. They are just pig ignorant either way.

If you accept the Bible stories about ages, then you are accepting claims lacking in evidence.

Hey, if man could not leave remains what it is you think science is capable of finding??

Which is your choice. But it's not anywhere near good enough for evidence-minded people, like myself. We could just as easily claim that Thor creates lightning based on ancient stories in old books. That's if we're just believing whatever we want to.

Or you could claim the universe was a small hot soup that sailed out of a turtle's rear...so? You have been shown you have no evidence at all, you have just sullied evidences with God awful beliefs.

The links I provided spoke about the past and present. You really need to read up on some actual science.

If that endless rag of an article did mention the far past, post the relevant bit and only use the link for support. Let's see the proof offered for life spans!! Ha ha

 

[dad]

The existing evidence does not indicate in any way that humans used to live for hundreds of years. If you want to make the claim, you need to find the evidence that backs your claim.

There is not even evidence science has that humans lived at all in the time in question. That does not mean much. They are just pig ignorant either way.

If you accept the Bible stories about ages, then you are accepting claims lacking in evidence.

Hey, if man could not leave remains what it is you think science is capable of finding??

Which is your choice. But it's not anywhere near good enough for evidence-minded people, like myself. We could just as easily claim that Thor creates lightning based on ancient stories in old books. That's if we're just believing whatever we want to.

Or you could claim the universe was a small hot soup that sailed out of a turtle's rear...so? You have been shown you have no evidence at all, you have just sullied evidences with God awful beliefs.

The links I provided spoke about the past and present. You really need to read up on some actual science.

If that endless rag of an article did mention the far past, post the relevant bit and only use the link for support. Let's see the proof offered for life spans!! Ha ha

 

[dad]

It is entirely true.

Yup. And even in that sampling we see a clear progression in forms, both morphologically and temporally.

Source?

It is truly crazy to think that it is the result of a single even.

The creation combned with the ability to evolve will do it easily actually.

Unsupported assertions are so clever.

That is why you reverence the TOE I guess.

Please provide the biological mechanism and supporting evidence that "Men and animals could adapt at lightning speeds in the former nature".

Please show us some science that covers what nature existed?? Otherwise you cannot look to nincompoop science for answers.

 

[Jose Fly]

There's no wrong in believing that God created the world. The stupidity is to claim that he/she/it did it a way that contradicts the evidence. I've said it before that evolution would be a very smart way of a God to produce (create) a world. Using procedural generated assets is a thing now in games. Evolution is just a very advanced procedure. When they keep on insisting that God couldn't have used a very smart method but must've used his hands and molded clay, it sounds to me that they're downplaying God's intelligence. God can only be real if he's a skilled carpenter and a creatvie artist, but not very smart in math or computers.

It's important to note that Jehovah's Witnesses are under a significant threat from their church, where if a Witness were to deviate from doctrine (i.e., no longer deny evolution) they would be subject to social and emotional ruin. As the Witness here in this thread once described it to me, such a person would be "treated like a rotten piece of fruit" and a "person spreading poison". They would be kicked out of the faith and all Witnesses would shun the former member (see: Disfellowshipping).

So if one's membership in that faith is an important part of their personal and social life, as well as their emotional well-being, the severity of these consequences cannot be overstated. Yet for some reason that I can't figure out, the Witnesses here refuse to acknowledge that it plays any sort of role in how they view the science of evolutionary biology.

 

[dad]

It is entirely true.

Yup. And even in that sampling we see a clear progression in forms, both morphologically and temporally.

Source?

It is truly crazy to think that it is the result of a single even.

The creation combned with the ability to evolve will do it easily actually.

Unsupported assertions are so clever.

That is why you reverence the TOE I guess.

Please provide the biological mechanism and supporting evidence that "Men and animals could adapt at lightning speeds in the former nature".

Please show us some science that covers what nature existed?? Otherwise you cannot look to nincompoop science for answers.

 

[Ouroboros]

It's important to note that Jehovah's Witnesses are under a significant threat from their church, where if a Witness were to deviate from doctrine (i.e., no longer deny evolution) they would be subject to social and emotional ruin. As the Witness here in this thread once described it to me, such a person would be "treated like a rotten piece of fruit" and a "person spreading poison". They would be kicked out of the faith and all Witnesses would shun the former member (see: Disfellowshipping).

So if one's membership in that faith is an important part of their personal and social life, as well as their emotional well-being, the severity of these consequences cannot be overstated. Yet for some reason that I can't figure out, the Witnesses here refuse to acknowledge that it plays any sort of role in how they view the science of evolutionary biology.

The constant danger of organized religion. Don't have the freedom to believe what you believe, but you're forced to believe what someone else have imagined. So much for personal faith.

 

[Jose Fly]

The constant danger of organized religion. Don't have the freedom to believe what you believe, but you're forced to believe what someone else have imagined. So much for personal faith.

I can understand something like "If you don't share our beliefs, you don't belong here", but to take that extra leap to deliberately inflicting emotional pain? That's pretty messed up IMO.

 

[Ouroboros]

I can understand something like "If you don't share our beliefs, you don't belong here", but to take that extra leap to deliberately inflicting emotional pain? That's pretty messed up IMO.

Yup. Believe what I believe or I'll beat you up. Great love in that religion(!) It's abuse.

 

[tas8831]

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.

Such projection is typically seen only in religious fanatics.

 

[tas8831]

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.

I forget now who originally posted these on this forum, but I keep it in my archives because it offers a nice 'linear' progression of testing a methodology and then applying it - I have posted this more than a dozen times for creationists who claim that there is no evidence for evolution:

The tested methodology:

Science 25 October 1991:
Vol. 254. no. 5031, pp. 554 - 558

Gene trees and the origins of inbred strains of mice

WR Atchley and WM Fitch

Extensive data on genetic divergence among 24 inbred strains of mice provide an opportunity to examine the concordance of gene trees and species trees, especially whether structured subsamples of loci give congruent estimates of phylogenetic relationships. Phylogenetic analyses of 144 separate loci reproduce almost exactly the known genealogical relationships among these 24 strains. Partitioning these loci into structured subsets representing loci coding for proteins, the immune system and endogenous viruses give incongruent phylogenetic results. The gene tree based on protein loci provides an accurate picture of the genealogical relationships among strains; however, gene trees based upon immune and viral data show significant deviations from known genealogical affinities.

======================

Science, Vol 255, Issue 5044, 589-592

Experimental phylogenetics: generation of a known phylogeny

DM Hillis, JJ Bull, ME White, MR Badgett, and IJ Molineux
Department of Zoology, University of Texas, Austin 78712.

Although methods of phylogenetic estimation are used routinely in comparative biology, direct tests of these methods are hampered by the lack of known phylogenies. Here a system based on serial propagation of bacteriophage T7 in the presence of a mutagen was used to create the first completely known phylogeny. Restriction-site maps of the terminal lineages were used to infer the evolutionary history of the experimental lines for comparison to the known history and actual ancestors. The five methods used to reconstruct branching pattern all predicted the correct topology but varied in their predictions of branch lengths; one method also predicts ancestral restriction maps and was found to be greater than 98 percent accurate.

==================================

Science, Vol 264, Issue 5159, 671-677

Application and accuracy of molecular phylogenies

DM Hillis, JP Huelsenbeck, and CW Cunningham
Department of Zoology, University of Texas, Austin 78712.

Molecular investigations of evolutionary history are being used to study subjects as diverse as the epidemiology of acquired immune deficiency syndrome and the origin of life. These studies depend on accurate estimates of phylogeny. The performance of methods of phylogenetic analysis can be assessed by numerical simulation studies and by the experimental evolution of organisms in controlled laboratory situations. Both kinds of assessment indicate that existing methods are effective at estimating phylogenies over a wide range of evolutionary conditions, especially if information about substitution bias is used to provide differential weightings for character transformations.
​

We can hereby CONCLUDE that the results of an application of those methods have merit.


Application of the tested methodology:

Implications of natural selection in shaping 99.4% nonsynonymous DNA identity between humans and chimpanzees: Enlarging genus Homo

"Here we compare ≈90 kb of coding DNA nucleotide sequence from 97 human genes to their sequenced chimpanzee counterparts and to available sequenced gorilla, orangutan, and Old World monkey counterparts, and, on a more limited basis, to mouse. The nonsynonymous changes (functionally important), like synonymous changes (functionally much less important), show chimpanzees and humans to be most closely related, sharing 99.4% identity at nonsynonymous sites and 98.4% at synonymous sites. "



Mitochondrial Insertions into Primate Nuclear Genomes Suggest the Use of numts as a Tool for Phylogeny

"Moreover, numts identified in gorilla Supercontigs were used to test the human–chimp–gorilla trichotomy, yielding a high level of support for the sister relationship of human and chimpanzee."



A Molecular Phylogeny of Living Primates

"Once contentiously debated, the closest human relative of chimpanzee (Pan) within subfamily Homininae (Gorilla, Pan, Homo) is now generally undisputed. The branch forming the Homo andPanlineage apart from Gorilla is relatively short (node 73, 27 steps MP, 0 indels) compared with that of thePan genus (node 72, 91 steps MP, 2 indels) and suggests rapid speciation into the 3 genera occurred early in Homininae evolution. Based on 54 gene regions, Homo-Pan genetic distance range from 6.92 to 7.90×10−3 substitutions/site (P. paniscus and P. troglodytes, respectively), which is less than previous estimates based on large scale sequencing of specific regions such as chromosome 7[50]. "​

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

CONCLUSION:

This evidence lays out the results of employing a tested methodology on the question of Primate evolution. The same general criteria/methods have been used on nearly all facets of the evolution of living things.



Too much "jargon" for someone that has "studied" all this for decades, I know.... I am beginning to lose faith in the honesty of creationists who make these embellished claims of having great scientific knowledge.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Ha...your religion has more?

No religion.

I'm talking about the methodology we use to determine fact from fantasy. A method that involves observing, experimenting, verifying, demonstrating and repeated testing. I'm talking about science. As in, the only methodology we've come up with to date that has best revealed to us what is happening in the world around us. And the interesting thing about that is, every time there has been a religious explanation for some thing going on in the world (e.g. Lightning comes from the gods), we always seem to find an actual naturalistic explanation for the phenomenon in question. You know why? Because somebody took the time to actually investigate and determine what was going on, rather than just to stick with old texts that say gods did it. It's hard to learn new things when you're stuck adhering to ancient books written by people who were much more ignorant about the world than we are today.

Here is the difference between you and me. I'm willing to believe anything, but only if the evidence supports it.
You're willing to believe whatever the Bible claims, with or without evidence supporting it.
You are following a religion, and I am not.

So anyway, like I said, there is much more evidence for evolution than just the fossil record. Apparently you are not aware of comparative genomics and nested hierarchies.