The blind faith of the evolutionists

[shawn001]

This is new

DNA Study Shows Why Neanderthals, Modern Humans Are So Different

"By Sharon Begley

NEW YORK (Reuters) - How can creatures as different in body and mind as present-day humans and their extinct Neanderthal cousins be 99.84 percent identical genetically?

Four years after scientists discovered that the two species' genomes differ by a fraction of a percent, geneticists said on Thursday they have an explanation: the cellular equivalent of "on"/"off" switches that determine whether DNA is activated or not.

Hundreds of Neanderthals' genes were turned off while the identical genes in today's humans are turned on, the international team announced in a paper published online in Science. They also found that hundreds of other genes were turned on in Neanderthals, but are off in people living today.

Among the hundreds: genes that control the shape of limbs and the function of the brain, traits where modern humans and Neanderthals differ most.

"People are fundamentally interested in what makes us human, in what makes us different from Neanderthals," said Sarah Tishkoff, an expert in human evolution at the University of Pennsylvania, who was not involved in the new study. Discovering the differences in gene activation is "an amazing technical feat," she said, and goes a long way to answering that riddle."

DNA Study Shows Why Neanderthals, Modern Humans Are So Different

 

[InvestigateTruth]

Read above what I just posted, that helps clear up a big misconception your having with the term "theory."

" insisted their theoretical conclusions are absolutely true?"

No one because its theoretical and has not been scientifically proven yet. Well there are a very few who might try though. LOL

"The evidences prove that all species has been evolving through millions of years from one shape to another."

With all life billions of years not millions, millions with us.

The dinosaurs lived for about 180 million years before they went extinct.

"How does science define human?"

"Homo sapiens sapiens"

Human DNA we sequenced the entire human genome.

How do you define different forms of the apes?

Are they all the same, monkeys, orangutans and gorillas?

I know what theory is, thanks!. I think you already admitted there are both theories in evolution and facts. Are you saying a theory is never possibly replaced by a more correct and accurate theory?

With all life billions of years not millions, millions with us.

There is nothing wrong with saying millions of millions instead of billions! a billion is one thousand million, and I said millions of millions. Please note! lol

 

[shawn001]

I know what theory is, thanks!. I think you already admitted there are both theories in evolution and facts. Are you saying a theory is never possibly replaced by a more correct and accurate theory?



There is nothing wrong with saying millions of millions instead of billions! a billion is one thousand million, and I said millions of millions. Please note! lol

Your not using the scientific usage of the term Theory.

There are billions of scientific facts that support the Scientific theory of Evolution. Evolution is both a scientific FACT and a "working" Scientific theory.

From the National Academies of science.

Is Evolution a Theory or a Fact?

It is both. But that answer requires looking more deeply at the meanings of the words "theory" and "fact."

In everyday usage, "theory" often refers to a hunch or a speculation. When people say, "I have a theory about why that happened," they are often drawing a conclusion based on fragmentary or inconclusive evidence.

The formal scientific definition of theory is quite different from the everyday meaning of the word. It refers to a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence.

Many scientific theories are so well-established that no new evidence is likely to alter them substantially. For example, no new evidence will demonstrate that the Earth does not orbit around the sun (heliocentric theory), or that living things are not made of cells (cell theory), that matter is not composed of atoms, or that the surface of the Earth is not divided into solid plates that have moved over geological timescales (the theory of plate tectonics). Like these other foundational scientific theories, the theory of evolution is supported by so many observations and confirming experiments that scientists are confident that the basic components of the theory will not be overturned by new evidence. However, like all scientific theories, the theory of evolution is subject to continuing refinement as new areas of science emerge or as new technologies enable observations and experiments that were not possible previously.

One of the most useful properties of scientific theories is that they can be used to make predictions about natural events or phenomena that have not yet been observed. For example, the theory of gravitation predicted the behavior of objects on the moon and other planets long before the activities of spacecraft and astronauts confirmed them. The evolutionary biologists who discovered Tiktaalik predicted that they would find fossils intermediate between fish and limbed terrestrial animals in sediments that were about 375 million years old. Their discovery confirmed the prediction made on the basis of evolutionary theory. In turn, confirmation of a prediction increases confidence in that theory.

In science, a "fact" typically refers to an observation, measurement, or other form of evidence that can be expected to occur the same way under similar circumstances. However, scientists also use the term "fact" to refer to a scientific explanation that has been tested and confirmed so many times that there is no longer a compelling reason to keep testing it or looking for additional examples. In that respect, the past and continuing occurrence of evolution is a scientific fact. Because the evidence supporting it is so strong, scientists no longer question whether biological evolution has occurred and is continuing to occur. Instead, they investigate the mechanisms of evolution, how rapidly evolution can take place, and related questions.

http://www.nationalacademies.org/evolution/TheoryOrFact.html

So to answer you

"Are you saying a theory is never possibly replaced by a more correct and accurate theory?"

No, but evolution won't be one of them. Or will gravity. Or that the Earth revolves around the sun. It will continue to be refined and supported.

Do you think the theory of the "earth revolving around the sun will be replaced?

 

[shawn001]

also noted on billions and millions.

The solar system evolved around 5 billion years ago. The early earth would have been hostile to all life, no completely deadly to ALL life on it and there was no oxygen atmosphere either. What do we know were some of the first organism of life on earth and why were they so important to us now?

 

[InvestigateTruth]

Humans are defined by our genetics. Its not any specific quality but rather the collective qualities of our genes that produces our identity as a species.

So no...none of that stuff.

This is perhaps the best definition according to biology that defines the physical body of human. But where does the human intellect come from according to science?

Poor argument is poor.
Scientific fact doesn't' mean infallible truth of the universe. But it is still a fact none the less. The amount of evidence for evolution is so astounding that it is one of the most substantiated theories of all time. You are going off of unsubstantiated religious ideology and a gut hunch that "meh I bet science got it wrong this time."

......

It is not about if theory of evolution is wrong or right! It is about how accurate it is. It is not only religious fanatic that is wrong, scientific fanaticism is wrong too.
The fact is we cannot deny the possibility that this current theory and understanding of evolution could till be improved and become more accurate.

Feel free to jump off of a building because they might be wrong about this whole "gravity" thing too. For all you know god would catch you and put you down safely if you believed hard enough. This last part is obviously facetious but does adequately show you how absurd your position is.

This is called an illogical fallacy. You are modifying my argument into something that you can easily show wrong. The "gravity" is not comparable with evolution. What you want to compare might be 'the reason earth has gravity'. There are theories about it, but is there a proof if any of the theories are truly explain the reason behind "gravity".

If something is false or if you feel something that science has deemed fact to be flat out wrong, then you must have substantial evidence to the contrary. Simply by stating "meh science got things wrong in the past" isn't an argument at all. In fact even if science had gotten everything wrong 10,000 times, if the evidence holds up then it makes no difference.

Sorry but It seems to me this is called Argument from ignorance: assuming that a claim is true because it has not been or cannot be proven false, or vice versa.

 

[shawn001]

This is perhaps the best definition according to biology that defines the physical body of human. But where does the human intellect come from according to science?




It is not about if theory of evolution is wrong or right! It is about how accurate it is. It is not only religious fanatic that is wrong, scientific fanaticism is wrong too.
The fact is we cannot deny the possibility that this current theory and understanding of evolution could till be improved and become more accurate.




This is called an illogical fallacy. You are modifying my argument into something that you can easily show wrong. The "gravity" is not comparable with evolution. What you want to compare might be 'the reason earth has gravity'. There are theories about it, but is there a proof if any of the theories are truly explain the reason behind "gravity".




Sorry but It seems to me this is called Argument from ignorance: assuming that a claim is true because it has not been or cannot be proven false, or vice versa.

"The fact is we cannot deny the possibility that this current theory and understanding of evolution could till be improved and become more accurate."


That doesn't discard the theory of evolution it supports it with more facts and understanding which is what has been going on for the last 150 years.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

This is perhaps the best definition according to biology that defines the physical body of human. But where does the human intellect come from according to science?

The brain.

It is not about if theory of evolution is wrong or right! It is about how accurate it is. It is not only religious fanatic that is wrong, scientific fanaticism is wrong too.
The fact is we cannot deny the possibility that this current theory and understanding of evolution could till be improved and become more accurate.

No one has ever stated that it isn't going to be modified as things go along. However you have a very specific idea of how things "are" without any evidence to support them. When I told you that you were factually wrong you have gone on this great big tangent about how scientific fact is fallible. While true it is ONLY in the face of evidence.

What do you mean by scientific fanaticism? I can't respond to that properly till you define that.

This is called an illogical fallacy. You are modifying my argument into something that you can easily show wrong. The "gravity" is not comparable with evolution. What you want to compare might be 'the reason earth has gravity'. There are theories about it, but is there a proof if any of the theories are truly explain the reason behind "gravity".

I actually stated in the part that you quoted that it was an over exemplification to stress a point. Though the point (while attained through satire) is still valid.

Though ToE and "gravity" are about on equal grounds. Actually evolution has more solid evidence to support it than our theories of what causes gravity. Though both are considered fact and are well known. The theory of relativity has been confirmed on several different points which indicates that our understanding of gravity isn't incorrect. The theory of evolution (or theories to be more accurate) all fall in line perfectly with one another across hundreds of thousands of cases of specific evidence without having one discrepancy that hasn't been explained or proven false.

Your stance on the theory is unsubstantiated by evidence. End of story. No (credible) scientist has ever stated that evolution is 100% understood and our definitions of it will never change. However that doesn't actually mean anything in the context of your argument against it.

Sorry but It seems to me this is called Argument from ignorance: assuming that a claim is true because it has not been or cannot be proven false, or vice versa.

I don't think you know what argument from ignorance is. Because what I used was almost the exact opposite.

We go with what we know to be true. We cannot live our lives or produce any advancement when relying on things that we "don't know" to be true.

Also nothing in science is upheld because it cannot be proven false or hasn't been. Every scientific fact is deemed so because of the overwhelming evidence in favor of it along with a lack of evidence against it. It is deemed a fact when it becomes perverse to deny it.

 

[FearGod]

Just because there's a new species that evolved from some individuals in a population doesn't mean that all in that population all evolve to the same new species.

This is something very basic in understanding evolution.

It's very obvious.

Compare it to how cars are developed. Just because Ford develops, manufactures, and sells a new model of a car doesn't mean they stopped the earlier models.

A large portion of H. erectus continued to live on and have children etc.

When there's a speciation event, that's a fork in the road. Not a new direction for everyone. A speciation means that there's a split. Some individuals got separated from the large group, and the new small fringe group evolved in a different direction than the first one.

Thanks for the info.

So the evolved species were living together all along with the origin (homo erectus).


How natural selection worked while homo erectus was successful in survival for over a million year and was still surviving?

Why do you think the homo erectus were distincted in several parts of the world while the evolved ones survived ?

 

[metis]

Generally speaking, the further we go back into time with human evolution, the more varieties we find, except when we get back over three million years b.p., this seems not as much to be the case. Sort of picture a pointed end early and late with the middle being multiple strands.

What we think happened is that there was a single branch splitting off from the early ape line that was successful in terms of surviving, and through both mutations and genetic drift, this line diversified so that there were various human forms by 3 million b.p. At first, since there were the most advanced forms, they were able to survive and spread.

However, especially as we get to around the 100,000 or so b.p., evidence has it that humans fought against each other, plus they undoubtedly competed against each other for food, and there's a narrowing down of the varieties. It is likely that this also occurred earlier than 100,000 b.p.. Then later, we see some evidence of limited intermarriage, and later some homogenization, but only to a point.

This is the general pattern we see with the fossil record and the genome testing.

 

[Ouroboros]

Thanks for the info.

So the evolved species were living together all along with the origin (homo erectus).

Like this:

How natural selection worked while homo erectus was successful in survival for over a million year and was still surviving?

Migration. Ecological/environmental schisms/separations. Changes in local weather pattern and conditions. Changes in global weather pattern and conditions. All causing natural selection, or a better word natural pressure. What environment does is causing pressure in different directions where certain genes in a genepool (latent genotypes in a diversified population) are better or worse for survival and reproduction.

Why do you think the homo erectus were distincted in several parts of the world while the evolved ones survived ?

Environmental differences. This can be seen in some places in the rainforest on a single tree. Where there are groves where water fills up but each grove has no connection to the other. Each grove develops differences in the same species. I don't have the references or information to guide you to this, because most of my books are packed away, but there's been many observations and experiments showing that the same species, when split into two different ecological systems, will evolve in different directions.

Specifically for H. erectus, I dont' know for sure what kind of conditions there would have been, but it must've been that the environment made it beneficial to be able to run on two feet for longer periods of time and cooperate with your family to hunt and have your arms free. Drought, tall grass, no food in the trees, I don't know what conditions would have done it. I would have to look it up and research a little to let you know.

 

[Ouroboros]

Right now according to certain scientific evidences, some conclusions are made, but as science improves, and new evidences are found the conclusions might be different and better, to the point that some of the conclusions that are considered true in our time, might be considered wrong at that point, and be replace with a correct one in future.

Sure. But there's an immense amount of evidence supporting that we evolved from apes.

Like I said, ERVs (22 or more) and transposons (I think they're some hundreds of them) that we share uniquely with chimpanzees. ERVs are random changes done in a DNA done by a virus. To get one exactly same virus change in your DNA as someone else is astronomically impossible. Basically, it's less possible than those numbers of "chances of life" calculations we see occasionally from anti-evolutionists. Basically, if the chances of abiogenesis is so impossible, then sharing a single ERV change in your DNA is even more impossible. Now, we share 22 with the chimps. That's 22 times impossible. The only way we share it is by being family. We share the same parents somewhere in the distant past. And that is not even touching the chances of sharing transposons...

I didn't say that the analogy of human in the womb proves evolution. I said when we evolve in the womb from something like a warm to a complete human,

Just to point out, I think you mean "worm" (a little wriggly animal). It's a little confusing with warm (heat, high temperature).

at all the time we are human, even though we do not like human in the womb. The point is that human on the earth has gone through evolution from one shape to another shape gradually, until what it looks like today, but at all the time it could have been a distinct specie.

Was Homo neanderthalis a distinct species or separate from us?
Was Homo ergaster?
Homo rhodensiensis?
Or any of the other 20 or so different human (very different body type and skeletal system) different or same species as us?
Was Australopithecus afarensis different or same?

The truth is that we have so many different fossils of different types of homonids that it's impossible not to see that we have evolved from an animal that had all ape-like characteristics in their body/skull/bones/teeth and lived like an ape, and yet where our human ancestor.

There is nothing in science to prove this to be wrong. Is there?

Well, since we have a fairly good chain of the evolution of humans and no other ones for humans, the bet is good that the track we see is the track that is.

I understand that this is not what is concluded right now, but not everything that is concluded is the absolute truth.

Do you follow the same principle for your own faith and opinions or is it only for the purpose of judging other people's faiths and opinions? Think about it. You could be wrong about what you think is the truth.

The history has shown that how many times scientists taught a particular theory is the absolute truth, while some time later, it was yet replaced by a better and more correct/complete theory.

Sure.

Other possibilities are that aliens controlled the mutations and genetic pool on this planet in microscopic steps, even today in nature where these things are observed and in labs where these things have been tested, just to fools us to think that all is related this way. I mean, it's a very likely explanation that aliens manipulated all of it. Or... God did it to deceive us into thinking that we are related to the apes. Leaving the tracks plainly in sight and all evidence pointing to the same thing, but it's all a lie... from God.

However, there is no evidence at all that we have evolved from any other animal. The evidence is extremely clear to that we evolved from apes.

Also, the analogy I used was from Baha'i scriptures written over 100 years ago. i can quote if you want.

So... you feel that a 100 year old religious book is more accurate about science than let's say 100 scientists currently right here and now?

 

[shawn001]

Thanks for the info.

So the evolved species were living together all along with the origin (homo erectus).


How natural selection worked while homo erectus was successful in survival for over a million year and was still surviving?

Why do you think the homo erectus were distincted in several parts of the world while the evolved ones survived ?

Here is some info.

"Species

While the exact number of early human species is debated, on this page are links to summaries of the early human species accepted by most scientists. Click on any species to learn more about it.

Below the summaries is a chart showing the time span during which fossils of each species have been found."

Species | The Smithsonian Institution's Human Origins Program

Homo erectus

"Where Lived: Northern, Eastern, and Southern Africa; Western Asia (Dmanisi, Republic of Georgia); East Asia (China and Indonesia)
When Lived: Between about 1.89 million and 143,000 years ago"

"Early African Homo erectus fossils (sometimes called Homo ergaster) are the oldest known early humans to have possessed modern human-like body proportions with relatively elongated legs and shorter arms compared to the size of the torso. These features are considered adaptations to a life lived on the ground, indicating the loss of earlier tree-climbing adaptations, with the ability to walk and possibly run long distances. Compared with earlier fossil humans, note the expanded braincase relative to the size of the face. The most complete fossil individual of this species is known as the ‘Turkana Boy’ – a well-preserved skeleton (though minus almost all the hand and foot bones), dated around 1.6 million years old. Microscopic study of the teeth indicates that he grew up at a growth rate similar to that of a great ape. There is fossil evidence that this species cared for old and weak individuals. The appearance of Homo erectus in the fossil record is often associated with the earliest handaxes, the first major innovation in stone tool technology.

Early fossil discoveries from Java (beginning in the 1890s) and China (‘Peking Man’, beginning in the 1920s) comprise the classic examples of this species. Generally considered to have been the first species to have expanded beyond Africa, Homo erectus is considered a highly variable species, spread over two continents (it's not certain whether it reached Europe), and possibly the longest lived early human species - about nine times as long as our own species, Homo sapiens, has been around!"

Homo erectus

There is more information on the page as well.

"Homo erectus Topics:
click a topic to view it below"

Homo erectus


There is also a section

""How do we know..."

The aim of science is to build more accurate and powerful natural explanations of how the world works—and that requires testing ideas with observations and evidence to build scientific hypotheses and to generate predictions. The following examples explain how different kinds of evidence help scientists "know what we know", and how we use that evidence to draw conclusions about what happened in the past.

How Do We Know Humans Are Primates?
How Do We Know These Skulls Are Early Humans?
How Do We Know Climates Changed?
How Do We Know These Are Different Species?
How Do We Know the Ages of These Fossils?
How Do We Know These Are Human Fossils?
How Do We Know Climates Changed In The Past?
How Do We Know This Zebra Was Food?
How Do We Know Humans Evolved?
How Do We Know the Footprints Are Human?
How Do We Know Hadar’s Environment Changed?
How Do We Know Tools Were Transported?
How Do We Know These Were Hearths?
How Do We Know How Long It Took to Grow Up?
How Do We Know These Were Used as Pigments?
How Do We Know These Are Beads?"

How Do We Know? | The Smithsonian Institution's Human Origins Program

There is also

"Human Evolution Timeline Interactive

Explore the evidence for human evolution in this interactive timeline - climate change, species, and milestones in becoming human.

Zoom in using the magnifier on the bottom for a closer look!"

Human Evolution Timeline Interactive | The Smithsonian Institution's Human Origins Program

 

[Sabour]

The Piltdown Man was a paleoanthropological hoax in which bone fragments were presented as the fossilised remains of a previously unknown early human.

Please read more

The Piltdown Man, 1912

 

[metis]

The Piltdown Man was a paleoanthropological hoax in which bone fragments were presented as the fossilised remains of a previously unknown early human.

Please read more

The Piltdown Man, 1912

What happened with Piltdown occurred many decades ago, and steps were immediately taken when the hoax was uncovered in the 1950's to make absolutely certain that it could not happen again.

 

[Ouroboros]

The Piltdown Man was a paleoanthropological hoax in which bone fragments were presented as the fossilised remains of a previously unknown early human.

Please read more

The Piltdown Man, 1912

1. The hoax was discovered to be a hoax by scientists, not preachers, monks, or religious extremists. The scientific community was skeptical enough not to buy into the hoax for a very long time. (Edit: Confused sentence. Rewrite: The scientific community was skeptical enough to look into the hoax, and it didn't take long for them to find out that it was a fake.)
2. Since then, other, authentic bones and skulls, have been found. (Edit: like Taung Man and Peking Man, both authenticated and genuine.)

What you can learn from it is that the bones are very identifiable for different species. The hoax was not only discovered, but they could determine what kind of apes they came from. It shows how much anthropologists and paleontologists know about how to read and study bones. I didn't appreciate it enough until I learned some of it in school some years ago.

This is the strength of science. Science is supposed to be self-correcting. It is supposed to have quality controls. If science can root out and fix hoaxes, then it's a sign of a good thing. It means it can do its job. How often do we see religions do this? ... I can't think of one. If someone has a different view or opinion about something in a religion, they just start a new religion or cult. The simple answer in religion is, if you find something wrong, don't fix it, just add on to it.

So which method do I prefer? The honest one. The one that tests, check, rechecks, modify, and corrects the errors. Why? Because that's the one that has the highest probability of telling the truth. Following a holy book that some guys wrote some thousand years ago and never change or remove the errors, that's not self-correcting or truth seeking.

 

[FearGod]

Like this:

Migration. Ecological/environmental schisms/separations. Changes in local weather pattern and conditions. Changes in global weather pattern and conditions. All causing natural selection, or a better word natural pressure. What environment does is causing pressure in different directions where certain genes in a genepool (latent genotypes in a diversified population) are better or worse for survival and reproduction.


Environmental differences. This can be seen in some places in the rainforest on a single tree. Where there are groves where water fills up but each grove has no connection to the other. Each grove develops differences in the same species. I don't have the references or information to guide you to this, because most of my books are packed away, but there's been many observations and experiments showing that the same species, when split into two different ecological systems, will evolve in different directions.

Specifically for H. erectus, I dont' know for sure what kind of conditions there would have been, but it must've been that the environment made it beneficial to be able to run on two feet for longer periods of time and cooperate with your family to hunt and have your arms free. Drought, tall grass, no food in the trees, I don't know what conditions would have done it. I would have to look it up and research a little to let you know.

We can see that Homo erectus were so successful in surviving for around 2 millions of years and they were well adapted to the environment and any sudden changes in the environment will affect all human species regardless of the few differences between them,then how you explain the extinction of one kind that lived in different part of the world for long period of time.

 

[metis]

The vast majority of life forms that have inhabited Earth have gone extinct. In the case of H.e., some of them evolved into new human species, but the others either couldn't compete and/or were wiped out by more advanced groups.

 

[Ouroboros]

We can see that Homo erectus were so successful in surviving for around 2 millions of years and they were well adapted to the environment and any sudden changes in the environment will affect all human species regardless of the few differences between them,then how you explain the extinction of one kind that lived in different part of the world for long period of time.

Few differences? Sometimes it doesn't take much. Sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn't.

Environments changes. We know that for a fact. Geology, meteorology, astronomy, etc, all know this. The weather changes. The world changes.

For instance, during the time of the dinosaurs, the air was much more oxygen rich than it is today (IIRC). Probably because of the huge amount of plants producing it. They needed sun and water. A meteor hit and you get ash clouds all around the Earth (just like was observed with Krakatoa). Sunlight can't penetrate. Plants die out. Animals needing lots of plants can't survife. Animals that can live on alternative food sources or on lot less have better chance of survival.

Exactly what events brought about the extinction of H.e., I can't say. I would have to look it up or research it. But I suspect the global ice age had a huge part in it.

The thing though is that the chart I gave you is based on the fossil record of what we know existed in the past. The big questions is why, how, when, etc. But H.e. did for sure exist and had some extreme anatomical differences to modern humans (like the suborbital constriction, much more like apes than humans, and other features that resemble apes more than humans, yet, bipedal and related to us).

 

[dust1n]

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL6299F3195349CCDA&feature=plcp

Free entire class from Yale university on evolutionary biology.

 

[Ouroboros]

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL6299F3195349CCDA&feature=plcp

Free entire class from Yale university on evolutionary biology.

But that's just childish and silly thing to do.