Results 1 to 10 of 30
-
10-11-2009, 02:21 PM #1
World’s oldest human-linked skeleton found
I know this is old news, but we've yet to discuss it. A recent thread asked both evolutionists and creationists for proof. Well, evolutionists don't have proof, but TONS of scientific evidence. Behold the most recent.
Evolution is here to stay, my friends!
“This is one of the most important discoveries for the study of human evolution,” said David Pilbeam, curator of paleoanthropology at Harvard’s Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology.
“It is relatively complete in that it preserves head, hands, feet and some critical parts in between. It represents a genus plausibly ancestral to Australopithecus — itself ancestral to our genus Homo,” said Pilbeam, who was not part of the research teams.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33110809...cience-science
-
-
10-11-2009, 04:59 PM #2
Personally I think evolution is bogus. I think we have always been humans and were humans before our so-called ancestors even existed although there is no evidence backing my claims up. I even think we could have possibly existed during and before the Dinosaurs. My belief is that we have inhabited this earth much longer than what people believe.
-
10-11-2009, 05:38 PM #3
One thing most people do not understand is all fossils and living animals are transitional forms. Evolution marches on until the Earth can no longer support life.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transitional_fossil
-
-
10-11-2009, 10:48 PM #4
"That which can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."
-Christopher Hitchens
-
10-12-2009, 03:42 AM #5
I Lied. There is some, but very little evidence suggesting that humans have existed for at least 200,000 years. Which is about 100,000 years before we supposably evolded into what we now know as Homosapiens. Some artifacts are estimated to be at least a BILLION years old including the hundreds of man made spheres found in South Africa examined by metalurgists and proven to be authentic.
-
-
10-12-2009, 04:27 AM #6
Science has been scientifically disproved more than any religion has been disproved.
-
10-12-2009, 11:19 AM #7
If you folks who believe in evolution are OK with the idea that you descended from beings that walked on all fours, ate fleas and ticks off of the backs of others and threw poop when they argued, then be my guest.
I came from the loins of man.
------------------------------
But for those of you who need a bit of scientific argument to rebut your scientific argument.....
There is no full geological column - Why does evolution deal in jumps and leaps? Evolution shows no gradual change, which is what evolutionist claim has happened. Evolution jumps from the hunched over Cro-Magnon man with a furry body, blunt head, wide jaw and wide-set eyes to upright Homo sapiens with a nearly hairless body, round head, proportional jaw and narrow-set eyes. Where is the bridge? Did two Cro-Magnons breed and suddenly produce a race of Homo Sapiens? Where are the transitional fossils that show gradual changes over time?
Inter-species breeding - Evolution teaches that we all descended from that first slimy being that managed to pull itself from the sludge of early Earth. If that is the case, then why do all beings on Earth not have the ability to inter-breed? If dogs and cats came from the same ancestor then why can they not procreate? If horses and cows "evolved" from the same source, why can they not reproduce? Why is there no genetic bridge that connects every being on Earth?
Human genome cannot increase in complexity - By their own admission, all scientists (including evolutionist) agree that the human genome cannot increase in complexity. Yet evolution teaches that the modern version of the human is more complex than that of previous "versions" of man. So how is it that man improved and became better over a few hundred thousand years if the human genome cannot?
Why are there still apes? - If man evolved from apes, why are there still apes? Did we just get lucky? Are we just one genetic glitch away from being "The Planet of the Apes"? And why do we not see a gradual evolution of modern apes into men? Why do we not see 4th, 5th and 6th generation apes that have been in captivity becoming more man-line and more intelligent?
Agraptalyte's are a joke as index fossils An index fossil is generally the fossil of a species that is believed to have emerged at a certain time, and which became extinct at a more recent, known time. Agraptalyte's are used as index fossils. However, just a few years ago Agraptalyte's were found alive and well in the South Pacific. This means that EVERY fossil that was aged with an Agraptalyte fossil as an index is flawed. This instance alone blows huge holes in the theory of Evolution.
Proto-humans are our ancestors... - Recent evolutionist have come up with the term "proto-humans" or Proto-sapiens, to describe the missing link between modern man and Cro-Magnon man. However, this is nothing but fantasy. The is no such thing as proto-humans. There are no fossils, no genetic proof, nothing...as far as science is concerned, they did not exist.
Science is proving science to be wrong - Recent discoveries in genetics show that the mitochondrial DNA of all living humans is inherited from a woman who lived less than 200,000 years ago in Africa and the Y chromosomes of all men are inherited from a man who lived about 60,000 years ago, also in Africa. So how is it that we came from ape-like beings from 400,000 years or more ago if all modern DNA came from beings who lived less that 200,000 years ago??.....
-
-
10-12-2009, 12:54 PM #8
You know what proves science wrong? MORE SCIENCE. Religion has never once proven science wrong. Science has proven religion wrong more times than it's possible to count.
-
10-12-2009, 01:26 PM #9
care to list a few of the countless times science has proven religion wrong? I thought since God can't be proven that he can't be disproven.
-
10-12-2009, 01:32 PM #10
You seem to feel entitled to a nobility of heritage. You are not. Who or what your ancestors were doesn't have to mean anything. I don't even know anything about my own great-grandparents, let alone my ancestors millions of years ago.
There is no full geological column - Why does evolution deal in jumps and leaps? Evolution shows no gradual change, which is what evolutionist claim has happened. Evolution jumps from the hunched over Cro-Magnon man with a furry body, blunt head, wide jaw and wide-set eyes to upright Homo sapiens with a nearly hairless body, round head, proportional jaw and narrow-set eyes. Where is the bridge? Did two Cro-Magnons breed and suddenly produce a race of Homo Sapiens? Where are the transitional fossils that show gradual changes over time?
Look up "punctuated equilibrium." This is a theory that suggests evolution progresses in jumps and leaps in response to corresponding changes in the environment. Creationists always talk about "the evolution controversy" like there is a controversy in the scientific community over whether evolution happens at all. There isn't. But that being said, there are controversies within the study of evolution. One of them is punctuated equilibrium vs. phyletic gradualism (whether things happen in jumps and leaps or slow and steady). It seems to me that the rate at which it occurs is dependent on the rate at which the environment changes. Furthermore, the fossil record will always be spotty because very rare, very specific conditions must be satisfied in order for a dead organism to fossilize. All that being said, I bet your understanding of the fossil record is out of date, like most creationists' are.
Inter-species breeding - Evolution teaches that we all descended from that first slimy being that managed to pull itself from the sludge of early Earth. If that is the case, then why do all beings on Earth not have the ability to inter-breed? If dogs and cats came from the same ancestor then why can they not procreate? If horses and cows "evolved" from the same source, why can they not reproduce? Why is there no genetic bridge that connects every being on Earth?
Because the mechanism of evolution is in DNA replication. Mutations are cumulative. If they increase the ability of organisms to survive long enough to reproduce, they are duplicated in the next generation. More and more of them creep in and they add up over time. After long periods, the DNA of two populations grows disparate enough that they begin to have difficulties interbreeding (because the compatibility of their DNA is reduced). When they become unable to produce fertile offspring, we say a speciation event (or "macroevolution" as I bet you call it) has occurred. Horses and donkeys can interbreed, but their offspring, mules, are infertile. This indicates that the speciation event between horses and donkeys was more recent than the speciation event between cats and dogs, for example. According to biologists, the genetic disparity between modern day humans and chimpanzees is 2%, between humans and neanderthals was 0.5%, and between any two present-day humans is no more than 0.01%.
Human genome cannot increase in complexity - By their own admission, all scientists (including evolutionist) agree that the human genome cannot increase in complexity. Yet evolution teaches that the modern version of the human is more complex than that of previous "versions" of man. So how is it that man improved and became better over a few hundred thousand years if the human genome cannot?
You keep using the word "complexity." How do you define complexity in this context? And who are these scientists you mention? Cite your sources.
Why are there still apes? - If man evolved from apes, why are there still apes? Did we just get lucky? Are we just one genetic glitch away from being "The Planet of the Apes"? And why do we not see a gradual evolution of modern apes into men? Why do we not see 4th, 5th and 6th generation apes that have been in captivity becoming more man-line and more intelligent?
This question is utter nonsense. I really don't know why people keep asking it. Why shouldn't there still be apes? You seem to think that the way evolution works is that at some appointed time, all members of one species simultaneously turn into members of another. It is not. And it wasn't modern-day apes that gave rise to humans either. Modern-day humans and modern-day apes have a common ancestor. Two populations branched off from the initial one, one became modern-day humans, one became modern-day apes, and the remnants of the initial population died out. That's how it works: branching off. While it is true that sometimes mutations are spread across entire populations if they are small and close-knit, it's far more common for them to spread to only a subset of a population, and that becomes the focal point for a branching and eventually a speciation. And there's nothing about captivity that should cause apes to become more human-like. One thing we do see is captive apes becoming more accustomed to captivity and better suited to it as generations go on. But that's not part of evolution.
Agraptalyte's are a joke as index fossils An index fossil is generally the fossil of a species that is believed to have emerged at a certain time, and which became extinct at a more recent, known time. Agraptalyte's are used as index fossils. However, just a few years ago Agraptalyte's were found alive and well in the South Pacific. This means that EVERY fossil that was aged with an Agraptalyte fossil as an index is flawed. This instance alone blows huge holes in the theory of Evolution.
I did a Google search for "Agraptalyte" and got only 10 hits, most of which were either dead links or creationist Web sites. I'm guessing this is supposed to be a synonym for coelacanth. The fact that those were once thought to be extinct but we now know they are not does not argue against evolution. Evolution doesn't set a time table for life forms to go extinct. Life forms go extinct when their populations are decimated by natural disaster, their genetic diversity lowers to the point where it can no longer sustain itself, or their environment becomes unable to support them. And here's the important part: organisms that are well-suited to their environment may remain virtually unchanged for long periods of time as long as their environment doesn't change. If there is no selective pressure, there is no evolution. Some animals, like roaches, crocodiles and coelacanths, have hardly changed at all in millions of years because there is no need to.
Proto-humans are our ancestors... - Recent evolutionist have come up with the term "proto-humans" or Proto-sapiens, to describe the missing link between modern man and Cro-Magnon man. However, this is nothing but fantasy. The is no such thing as proto-humans. There are no fossils, no genetic proof, nothing...as far as science is concerned, they did not exist.
Where's your evidence? In science, we don't just take somebody's word on faith.
Science is proving science to be wrong - Recent discoveries in genetics show that the mitochondrial DNA of all living humans is inherited from a woman who lived less than 200,000 years ago in Africa and the Y chromosomes of all men are inherited from a man who lived about 60,000 years ago, also in Africa. So how is it that we came from ape-like beings from 400,000 years or more ago if all modern DNA came from beings who lived less that 200,000 years ago??.....
Yeah, one thing about Mitochondrial Eve and Y-Chromosomal Adam...those are only MOST RECENT common ancestors. Most recent being the operative words. All humans who have ever lived have those ape-like beings as common ancestors. It's only all presently living humans who have Mitochonrial Eve and Y-Chromosomal Adam as common ancestors. This is like asking how you can possibly be related to your distant cousins if you share an ancestor five generations back and another one ten generations back.
-
Originally Posted by WantToTrade 
