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

[Polymath257]

I'm surprised.
No I don't. To me, they are all of the frog kind; The same as we have the little terrier, and the bull terrier.

Your people say this...
The Salientia (Latin salere (salio), "to jump") are a total group of amphibians that includes the order Anura, the frogs and toads, and various extinct proto-frogs that are more closely related to the frogs than they are to the Urodela, the salamanders and newts.

So, all frogs and toads are in the same 'kind' because they are all in the same Order. Do you consider all primates to be in the same 'kind' also because they are also all in the same Order?

 

[nPeace]

So, all frogs and toads are in the same 'kind' because they are all in the same Order. Do you consider all primates to be in the same 'kind' also because they are also all in the same Order?

What do you mean by the same order, as I didn't say that, and have no idea what you mean? Is this science jargon?

 

[Polymath257]

What do you mean by the same order, as I didn't say that, and have no idea what you mean? Is this science jargon?

As in Order Anura or Order Primates. Biological classification based on similarities in genetics, structure, etc.

 

[nPeace]

As in Order Anura or Order Primates. Biological classification based on similarities in genetics, structure, etc.

No. Deeje explained. It has nothing to do with modern science and scientists' classifications.

 

[Polymath257]

No. Deeje explained. It has nothing to do with modern science and scientists' classifications.

OK, so are all fish in the 'same kind'? And if all primates are NOT, what criteria do you use to determine that?

 

[Polymath257]

That appears to be a problem for science. We don’t actually care who is related to what.....why would we? Nature takes care of itself, just as it was created to do.
.

This line, more than anything else, I found shocking.

Do you really have no curiosity about these things?

Do you really have no desire to learn more and to understand at a deeper level?

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Not at all. The record of death of creatures that could fossilize shows smaller creatures dying first and later bigger ones basically.

Then why is there a billion years between the first life forms and the first cyanobacteria, photosynthesis, and eukaryotic cells??? A BILLION years. That doesn't sound like smaller animals sinking first.

It confirms the God given trait of being able to evolve is true! So what!? NOTHING at all to do with the TOE rubbish.

Sure it does. If you acknowledge that evolution within a family can happen within a short period of time, all you need is an extended age of life in the billions to see that evolution happens from a single life form to the diversity we have today.

Once they leave God out of their knowledge it matter not what they think or claim! They are deluded. They do not even know what spirit if any leads them. They will have have become fools.

Thats just not true. There are many instances where God just doesn't enter into the equation. God does not, for example, have an influence on whether or not I will buy milk this week.

False since you do not know how long man has actually been here! Man was here for the ride when the continents separated!

Actually we do know that MODERN man, or homo sapiens, has been around for about 200,000 years. (Genus homo, or man, beginning with Homo Habilis has been around for about 2.3 million years.)

The breakup of Pangaea is simply the most recent breakup of continents. We know that various continents (different from today) have broken up and crashed together in all sorts of different configurations, although I believe Pangaea was the only time that they were grouped in one solid mass.

Pangaea broke up during the Triassic and Jurassic eras (think dinosaurs). There were no modern humans or proto-humans during those times.


The basis for that claim would be laughable if you dared to post it.

False, that is exactly how it started, with created animals and man.

In your religion, yes, we know.[/QUOTE]

 

[Deeje]

Let's deal with these "flaws" one at a time.

1. Educated guesses: It is not a guess that evolution happened--the evidence here is absolutely overwhelming. It is an educated guess regarding the complex driving forces behind it (natural selection, etc.). An educated guess is far, far different than just a guess.

That is why I called it "educated" guessing. Its the 'actual' education that I question when applied to macro-evolution, which seems to be based more on the assumption that if a little is good, a lot must be better. That is often not the case.

1. Speciation: It is a fact that we have directly observed speciation within our own lifetimes. I have given the example of the Shetland Monkey Plant, the descendant of the Monkey Plant -- it is so new that it doesn't even have a scientific name yet. It has a completely different number of chromosomes than the original Monkey Plant. It can no longer reproduce with the original Monkey Plant, yet it produces fertile offspring within its own group. THAT is speciation. Now, if that can happen over a period of 200 years, what can happen over a period of a million years? Yes, you are going to have species moving out of families.

Yep, that is the premise....I believe it is horribly flawed. Ability to reproduce is not a sure the way to determine whether something is related. Mules are the offspring of horses and donkeys, (both equines) but whose offspring are sterile. Does that make them unrelated to their parents in some way?

I see a baby zebra in the news lately which has a genetic mutation. It was interesting to read about it....

"The plains zebra likely has a mutation called “pseudomelanism”, which is characterised by an animal having dark spots and larger dark stripes in their coat.

Sadly, predators often target animals with distinctive colourations, and research has shown they are less likely to live long lives. This is because the animals are more easily spotted from among their pack."

Rare spotted baby zebra discovered by wildlife photographer

So mutations in the natural world are not really an asset to their family line most of the time. This works against evolution IMV.

1. Abiogenesis: This is not part of evolution. It is an entirely different subject so I'm not sure why you are bringing it up as a "flaw" of evolution.

I know....because it really is hard to make the minor changes of adaptation seem important when you can't even say for sure where life itself originated or how all that early evolution happened....the Bible explains it all you see. All you need is a Creator and everything else doesn't matter...unless of course you get swayed by science to ditch him.

How do Jews or Christians tell Moses that he got that all wrong? Was God just kidding when he inspired the Bible writers.....how did Moses know the order of creation? How did Isaiah know that the earth was round? How did Job know that the earth "hangs on nothing"?

I will trust the author of the Bible way more than I trust men of science....who can change their mind on everything tomorrow. God doesn't change and neither does his word.

 

[Deeje]

This line, more than anything else, I found shocking.

Do you really have no curiosity about these things?

Do you really have no desire to learn more and to understand at a deeper level?

Where did I say that? I love to explore everything....especially nature, and I have no beef with true and provable science......but I do not have to accept everything that evolutionary science dreams up to explain and excuse the gaps in their theory.

Interpretation is everything in the science of macro-evolution.....we interpret the evidence way differently to you because we don't have to explain away anything.....the Bible has already told us how life originated and what "kinds" of creatures (of which there may be an endless number of species) God put here to share this planet with us. You don't have to believe anything you don't want to. And the future that God promises for planet Earth is going to be awesome, but since it means that everyone living will worship the Creator and follow his instructions, those who have no desire to do that will not be forced to. That is fair....right?

I accept that all living things have the ability to adapt to a change in environment or food source, but I do not accept that what I see in nature is the result of random chance or accidental mutations, or that the things in an incredibly well planned eco-system are just flukes. OK?

 

[IndigoChild5559]

That is why I called it "educated" guessing. Its the 'actual' education that I question when applied to macro-evolution, which seems to be based more on the assumption that if a little is good, a lot must be better. That is often not the case.

That's not the assumption. The assumption is that the same processes that we see today have been at work since life first came into being. All that is needed is enough time, (IOW billions of years) and life will naturally evolved from reproducing complex molecules to what we see today.

Ability to reproduce is not sure the way to determine whether something is related. Mules are the offspring of horses and donkeys, (both equines) but whose offspring are sterile. Does that make them unrelated to their parents in some way?

You are misquoting me. What I actually said was FERTILE offspring. And if you've been reading all of my posts, I've also indicated that they can no longer breed with the parent species.

Since a mule meets neither of these criteria, it is a hybrid, not a true species. It does show that horses and donkeys are separate species, since they cannot produce fertile offspring.

I see a baby zebra in the news lately which has a genetic mutation. It was interesting to read about it....

"The plains zebra likely has a mutation called “pseudomelanism”, which is characterised by an animal having dark spots and larger dark stripes in their coat.

Sadly, predators often target animals with distinctive colourations, and research has shown they are less likely to live long lives. This is because the animals are more easily spotted from among their pack."

Rare spotted baby zebra discovered by wildlife photographer

So mutations in the natural world are not really an asset to their family line most of the time. This works against evolution IMV.

Unless this baby zebra can no longer produce fertile offspring with regular zebras, but can produce fertile offspring with like colored zebras, it is not a genuine new species, but merely a really cute, unusual regular zebra.

How do Jews or Christians tell Moses that he got that all wrong?

1. Moses did not write the two creation stories. The Torah was written by four different authors.

2. The writer of Genesis 1 didn't "get it wrong." The story, a myth, is not actually a lie. It is a work of fiction. Do you call Jesus' parables lies? Because they aren't historical either. Myths convey to us eternal truths, without being historical or scientific. You go into a myth understanding that. Don't expect it to be something it's not.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Interpretation is everything in the science of macro-evolution.....we interpret the evidence way differently

You know what? Some things have a high interpretational quotient. Other things are obvious at face value. If I catch Johnny with his hand in the cookie jar, I know he was swiping cookies, despite his protests. In the same respect, the gradual change in the characteristics of fossils over the billions of years in the ages of rocks documents "macro" evolution at face value, just as birds eating the colored moths that stand out, thus changing the overall color of the general population, documents natural selection at face value. Whether this existing natural selection is the biggest driving force behind evolution is what is theoretical.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That's not the assumption. The assumption is that the same processes that we see today have been at work since life first came into being. All that is needed is enough time, (IOW billions of years) and life will naturally evolved from reproducing complex molecules to what we see today.

You are misquoting me. What I actually said was FERTILE offspring. And if you've been reading all of my posts, I've also indicated that they can no longer breed with the parent species.

Since a mule meets neither of these criteria, it is a hybrid, not a true species. It does show that horses and donkeys are separate species, since they cannot produce fertile offspring.

I see a baby zebra in the news lately which has a genetic mutation. It was interesting to read about it....

"The plains zebra likely has a mutation called “pseudomelanism”, which is characterised by an animal having dark spots and larger dark stripes in their coat.

Sadly, predators often target animals with distinctive colourations, and research has shown they are less likely to live long lives. This is because the animals are more easily spotted from among their pack."

Rare spotted baby zebra discovered by wildlife photographer

So mutations in the natural world are not really an asset to their family line most of the time. This works against evolution IMV.

Unless this baby zebra can no longer produce fertile offspring with regular zebras, but can produce fertile offspring with like colored zebras, it is not a genuine new species, but merely a really cute, unusual regular zebra.




1. Moses did not write the two creation stories. The Torah was written by four different authors.

2. The writer of Genesis 1 didn't "get it wrong." The story, a myth, is not actually a lie. It is a work of fiction. Do you call Jesus' parables lies? Because they aren't historical either. Myths convey to us eternal truths, without being historical or scientific. You go into a myth understanding that. Don't expect it to be something it's not.

Deeje, like most creationists, does not understand that most mutations are very minor. The results that they produce are not very obvious. They tend to cause a slight improvement or hindrance. Mutations that produce a large change are almost always detrimental due to the fact that most species are well adapted to their current environment. Large changes would tend to take them away from that state.

 

[nPeace]

OK, so are all fish in the 'same kind'? And if all primates are NOT, what criteria do you use to determine that?

I think that's where details would matter, and if you are thinking with a purely scientific mind - that is, with scientific terms.
Question is, what is a fish.
Is everything in the ocean a fish?
Are all trees the same kind?
The answer to both of these questions, is no.
The Bible does not go into these details, but simply presents the basics - namely, living creatures, flying creatures, sea creatures, land creatures, creeping animals, seed-bearing plants and trees yielding fruit along with seed, according to their kinds.
So i think what you are asking, is not going to produce an answer that would satisfy a scientific mind.
Also primates is not a word you find in the Bible. It certainly has nothing to do with living according to God's will.

The Bible and true science are not at odds, but one deals specifically with something the other may not deal with.

 

[nPeace]

@IndigoChild5559

1. Moses did not write the two creation stories. The Torah was written by four different authors.
Isn't that an opinion?

There are scholars with another opinion.
Then within that same community, there are different opinions on the same topic. For example, some say there is archaeological evidence that confirms the Exodus. There is only disagreement on dating it, and there are different opinions on the date... along with a whole heap of other things.

I don't know your view on the Bible, but let's just suppose that you were a Bible student - that is, you thoroughly study the Bible, along with the manuscripts, archaeological finds... everything - the whole works. What position would you take?
Would you 1) go with one opinion or the other; 2) wait to see if they will ever agree, so that you can go with that; 3) go with your own opinion, which you formed based on your own study and evaluation?

 

[shunyadragon]

@IndigoChild5559

There are scholars with another opinion.
Then within that same community, there are different opinions on the same topic. For example, some say there is archaeological evidence that confirms the Exodus. There is only disagreement on dating it, and there are different opinions on the date... along with a whole heap of other things.

I don't know your view on the Bible, but let's just suppose that you were a Bible student - that is, you thoroughly study the Bible, along with the manuscripts, archaeological finds... everything - the whole works. What position would you take?
Would you 1) go with one opinion or the other; 2) wait to see if they will ever agree, so that you can go with that; 3) go with your own opinion, which you formed based on your own study and evaluation?

This line of posts is OFF TOPIC of the thread.

Nonetheless 'Some say' is meaningless as far as claims of evidence of exodus, It is matter of fact that there is no archaeological evidence for Exodus as described in the Bible. Opinions will get you a cup of coffee at McDonald's maybe. What you are offering above is opinions with no evidence. I go with specific verifiable evidence and not opinions. Start a thread on the evidence for exodus and we will discuss it, but please not in this thread.

This thread is based on objective verifiable evidence for the origins of humans, and not opinions.

 

[dad]

Then why is there a billion years between the first life forms and the first cyanobacteria, photosynthesis, and eukaryotic cells??? A BILLION years. That doesn't sound like smaller animals sinking first.

Almost he sole basis for your dating is a belief in a same nature in the past applied to isotope ratios. Prove there was a same nature or your dates are fantasy. There are still cyanobacteria today by the way. You whole timetable is simply faith based fantasy. Nor did I talk about anything 'sinking'?!

Sure it does. If you acknowledge that evolution within a family can happen within a short period of time, all you need is an extended age of life in the billions to see that evolution happens from a single life form to the diversity we have today.

No more than if we acknowledge a six year old boy is growing at, say, 2 inches a year, that he will reach the clouds in a hundred years! Just because there is a created trait observed today neither means life came about BY that trait, nor that the trait was the same in the former nature.

Thats just not true. There are many instances where God just doesn't enter into the equation. God does not, for example, have an influence on whether or not I will buy milk this week.

False. He made the cows that make milk! He made the grass they eat. He made man that collects and packages and transports it. He made the water we drink, the air we breathe, the sun that shines on us etc etc etc. Do not mistake your blindness to God's wonders and workings with there being no God.

Actually we do know that MODERN man, or homo sapiens, has been around for about 200,000 years. (Genus homo, or man, beginning with Homo Habilis has been around for about 2.3 million years.)

No. Your faith based imaginary time means diddly...get used to that. Man started being able to leave remains at a certain point in this nature..and you misdate it severely.

The breakup of Pangaea is simply the most recent breakup of continents. We know that various continents (different from today) have broken up and crashed together in all sorts of different configurations, although I believe Pangaea was the only time that they were grouped in one solid mass.

Yes, God separated the water and land before the big land mass came to exist and broke up. Your weird fantasies about why and when are absolute religion.

Pangaea broke up during the Triassic and Jurassic eras (think dinosaurs). There were no modern humans or proto-humans during those times.

Of course there were they simply did not leave remains. There never were proto humans by the way, that is just part of your religious fantasy.

I kid you not.

 

[Deeje]

That's not the assumption. The assumption is that the same processes that we see today have been at work since life first came into being. All that is needed is enough time, (IOW billions of years) and life will naturally evolved from reproducing complex molecules to what we see today.

But they are not the same processes at all.....they are assumed to be. As I said, its more based on the notion that if a little is good a lot must be better......that is not always the case.
Science has no idea what happened to produce life or how it eventually became all the living things that have ever existed. They 'assume' all of it, based on their interpretation of their evidence. When you have a pre-conceived notion about something, you make it fit. We can just as easily fit creation into the same "evidence".

Science has only promoted another creation story, but eliminating the Father God and instead crediting "Mother Nature".

You are misquoting me. What I actually said was FERTILE offspring. And if you've been reading all of my posts, I've also indicated that they can no longer breed with the parent species.

Since a mule meets neither of these criteria, it is a hybrid, not a true species. It does show that horses and donkeys are separate species, since they cannot produce fertile offspring.

A mule is one generation away from each parent (both equines). How does that make them reproductively sterile? Do you know what the genetic barrier is?

1. Moses did not write the two creation stories. The Torah was written by four different authors.

Really? who told you that? Moses is credited with writing the Torah. How would you prove otherwise?
There are not two creation stories.....one is in chronological order and the other is a history, only detailing the important bits, not necessarily in order.
Please provide evidence for the four authors of the Torah.

2. The writer of Genesis 1 didn't "get it wrong." The story, a myth, is not actually a lie. It is a work of fiction. Do you call Jesus' parables lies? Because they aren't historical either. Myths convey to us eternal truths, without being historical or scientific. You go into a myth understanding that. Don't expect it to be something it's not.

That to me is a very twisted version of events, but not surprising from the Jewish perspective.
Jesus' parables were teaching tools, drawn from everyday life, not myths. Genesis is hardly a comparison. We have no reason to believe that Genesis is a fictional story. Jesus referred to the creation of man and woman and highlighted that marriage from the beginning was between a man and a woman yoked together in marriage.

I find it to be both historical and scientific.....who is to say that it isn't?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

By God speaking and it was done. Jesus is the word of God and when He speaks all the atoms and forces and laws and powers in the universe fall into line.

So why couldn't evolution merely be the natural expression of God's will? Why is God limited to making life in precisely the way you imagine them doing?

Because you base your 'older' on beliefs that have no value or proof or evidence, such as a same state past,

To assert that the past is different has no proof or evidence, whereas Universal constants do.

I assume modern genetics is something found in the present nature, but not the past one. It is not known that genes worked as they now do exactly.

And why would they change? What caused the change?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

No, it is not relevant, and creating another strawman doesn't make it so.

I'm not convinced you understand what a strawman is.

The point I made, was that the fossil record is interpreted.

Everything is interpreted. The question is whether or not the interpretation presented by evolutionary theory makes sense, is testable, and stands up to scrutiny. It does.

You chimed in with the need to provide a better explanation. How is that relevant?

It's relevant because evolutionary theory explains these facts, and does so well and in a way that is testable. For you to assert that it is insufficient requires you to posit a more probable explanation.

Since you cannot, your objection is baseless.

Whether someone provides a million alternative interpretations, is besides the point.

It's not about alternative interpretations, it's about EXPLANATIONS. You can interpret the fossil record whatever way you want - the question is whether that interpretation better explains the facts and is better supported by evidence and examination.

When there are different interpretations in the scientific community, often what is decided on as the best, is accepted. Doesn't mean it is right. It's accepted, and research continues.

Sure. But evolution is currently the most widely accepted and evidenced theory in modern science. There is no dissent in science with regards to what the fossil record displays, nor of the reality of common descent.

The point is, the interpretations are just that - interpretations.

False. They are explanations.

When people claim the Bible is not reliable, or valid, they use the argument about the different interpretations, even claiming some things wrong, based on interpretations. No one argues for an alternative.

The difference being that there is no way to TEST the Bible to see if one interpretation is more valid than another. There is no way to demonstrate that you have directly asked God "What exactly does this passage mean?"

I don't have to demonstrate any fault. They are already written down. I linked some. You ignored them.

All you did was copy and paste bits of Darwin's writing that never stated any actual fault with the modern theory of evolution.

What faults do you think you have presented?

You evidently, are the only one I hear singing the magic chorus. No one else said anything about magic.

You said that new species just "appeared" in the fossil record. What mechanism does that?

You obviously seem to think the word creation means magic.

If you want to claim that species suddenly appear and disappear in the fossil record, again, what other words would best fit that?

I have an idea why that's the case, but it's probably best to say, I don't know why.
Creating things don't require magic, though.

So why can't it require evolution?

Is this an effort to provoke.

How? Do you or do you not understand that Darwin is not the final word on modern evolutionary theory?

I'm not going to tell you you are talking utter nonsense and thinking you are so intelligent. What I will say is keep up that attitude, and you can go talk to Deeje, and leave me out.

I simply pointed out that what you wrote didn't make sense. If you found that offensive, I apologize, but to me it read like jibberish.

If you can't present an argument without ............ then I'm sorry. Count me out.

I call a spade a spade. To me, the sentence "You said if "such and such" were the case, "blah blah blah"" is clearly jibberish, and bordering on an insult to me. I'm sorry if pointing that out upsets you.

Another thing, you obviously don't seem to understand the point, I am making, and this is not the first time we have had this problem. So maybe try understanding what the other person is saying, rather than just trying to push your argument.
That doesn't result in good conversation.

Then what point is it that you think you're making? Because quoting Darwin achieves next to nothing.

Can you describe how the cell formed, please?

Why can't you answer the question?

I think you are putting words in my mouth, which I did not say. I don't think I did that to you.

You earlier alleged that species "simply appeared" in the fossil record.

If the mechanism of this was not magic, what was it?

No. I DO NOT believe that anything just magically appeared out of nowhere.

Then where did those species in the fossil record come from? If you believe God is responsible, but that it was not just "magic", then why could evolution not be the mechanism God used?

Do you acknowledge that it may be POSSIBLE that God's chosen mechanism of diversification was evolution?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

We do know man was unique and special..

How do we know that, considering you've just said two posts ago that it's impossible to know that?

so no you cannot make stuff up

Considering you were the one who just claimed that we can't distinguish "kinds", and then went on to claim "human kind", it seems like you are the one making stuff up. Necessarily.

Science thinks man is recent because it does not know how to interpret evidence.

But you do, right?

I have my own religion tks

Yes, you have religious beliefs.
That is true.