World’s oldest human-linked skeleton found

[duane1969]

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.

You would be correct. I am entitled to a feeling of nobility because I have the ability to feel that. If I were a monkey, I would not.

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 All that being said, I bet your understanding of the fossil record is out of date, like most creationists' are.

Thank you for proving the entire point. A THEORY makes a SUGGESTION and has no validity or proof other than some guesstimation by a person with more degrees than common sense. It does not make it fact.

The reality is that never in the history of living beings has there ever been an instance where two similar beings reproduced and their off-spring was significantly more improved both physically and intellectually, which is exactly what would have to happen for punctuated equilibrium to be a reality.

My understanding of the fossil record is quite up-to-date.

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%.

The fallacy of that all of this is the idea that one being produced offspring like itself and those offspring became something other than the original parent. There is no biological proof that the off-spring of any being will ever be anything other than a genetic blend of it's two parents. The only way for there to be multiple species now is if there were multiple species to begin with, thus creationism.

The term DNA replication supports creationism, not evolution. Replicate means to create a copy. Not a near copy, an exact copy. If exacty copies are being created then evolution does not occur.

You keep using the word "complexity." How do you define complexity in this context? And who are these scientists you mention? Cite your sources.

I use complexity in the manner of this. Each strand on the DNA chain provides us with a specific aspect of who we are. Our hair color, eye color, skin type, whether or not we have crooked teeth or straight teeth...it is all based on genetic complexity. Each reproduced being is essentially a 50/50 blend of the two parents. In order for the off-spring to be more developed, the DNA would have to become more complex on it's own.

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.

A couple short comments here.

1) Sounds like punctuated equilibrium to me. As it usually happens, evolutionist eventually begin to argue against themselves. If monkeys/apes did not just suddenly become man then the whole punctuated equilibrium theory goes out the window.

2) This fails to hold water because of one small "glitch". Evolutionist keep producing models of ancient man that are identical to modern apes. If man and the apes branched off and the initial population died off, then why do we still have exact replicas of the initial population in zoos all over the world?

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.

No but it argues against the validity of carbon dating which is the basis for aging fossils that evolutionist use as the basis for their entire theory.

For example. A scientist ages a bone of "ancient man" and says that it is 400,000 years old because it is 10,000 years older than an index fossil. However, the index fossil (which is accepted to be 390,000 years old because that is when all known members of said species went extinct) is in fact only 200 years old because the species is not truly extinct. So in result, the "ancient man" fossil is actually 10,200 years old and is in fact the fossil of a monkey or ape, not of ancient man.

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.

So again, your argument is that somewhere along the line DNA suddenly made a left turn and new beings unlike any before them suddenly came into existance.....There is no scientific data to prove that there has ever been a spontaneous birth of a being with entirely different DNA from anything that ever existed before. The idea that "Mitochonrial Eve" and "Y-Chromosomal Adam" just suddenly appeared one day and were totally different in appearance and genetic make-up from their ancestors is preposterous.

The reality is that, if you believe in evolution then you believe that a lot of "lucky" things happened and accept that, in spite of lack of scientific data, that many things are true.

My beliefs revolve around my decision to believe facts, not theories.

[gatorboymike]

Thank you for proving the entire point. A THEORY makes a SUGGESTION and has no validity or proof other than some guesstimation by a person with more degrees than common sense. It does not make it fact.

The reality is that never in the history of living beings has there ever been an instance where two similar beings reproduced and their off-spring was significantly more improved both physically and intellectually, which is exactly what would have to happen for punctuated equilibrium to be a reality.

My understanding of the fossil record is quite up-to-date.

I see you don't even know what a scientific theory is. A theory in science doesn't mean the same thing as a theory in everyday colloquial language. It's not a guess. It's a model that describes a process supported by a wide base of facts and contradicted by none. Also, I see you're using the standard creationist lie of "dogs giving birth to cats." That is utterly wrong and idiotic as well. For punctuated equilibrium to be accurate, all you would have to have is marked morphological change across a small number of generations in a population where the environment is undergoing rapid change. And we have seen that. Furthermore, I bet you can't even name a single transitional form in the evolution of whales from tetrapods. I know you're just going to Google it and say "Ha-ha, I knew it all along!"

The fallacy of that all of this is the idea that one being produced offspring like itself and those offspring became something other than the original parent. There is no biological proof that the off-spring of any being will ever be anything other than a genetic blend of it's two parents. The only way for there to be multiple species now is if there were multiple species to begin with, thus creationism.

Again with the dogs giving birth to cats lie. You know, if you ever found a dog giving birth to a cat, that would DISprove evolution.

The term DNA replication supports creationism, not evolution. Replicate means to create a copy. Not a near copy, an exact copy. If exacty copies are being created then evolution does not occur.

DNA does not replicate itself perfectly. That is what causes mutations. You're just using semantics to try to dismiss the point.

I use complexity in the manner of this. Each strand on the DNA chain provides us with a specific aspect of who we are. Our hair color, eye color, skin type, whether or not we have crooked teeth or straight teeth...it is all based on genetic complexity. Each reproduced being is essentially a 50/50 blend of the two parents. In order for the off-spring to be more developed, the DNA would have to become more complex on it's own.

Once again you didn't define complexity. No organism is a perfect subset of its parents' DNA because mutations occur. Even though mutations are rare in terms of how many base pairs are replicated correctly compared to how many are replicated incorrectly, organisms have so much DNA that we all have them in us. I once watched a documentary in which a biologist stated that every human's DNA has about 100 mutations in it. The vast majority of them don't produce any morphological change at all. But some do.

1) Sounds like punctuated equilibrium to me. As it usually happens, evolutionist eventually begin to argue against themselves. If monkeys/apes did not just suddenly become man then the whole punctuated equilibrium theory goes out the window.

I can't tell if you just don't understand what punctuated equilibrium is and you're speaking out of ignorance, or if you do know what it is and you're deliberately lying in hopes that people won't verify what you say.

2) This fails to hold water because of one small "glitch". Evolutionist keep producing models of ancient man that are identical to modern apes. If man and the apes branched off and the initial population died off, then why do we still have exact replicas of the initial population in zoos all over the world?

So you're saying there are australopithecus africanus in zoos all over the world today? Where are those? I'd really like to see one.

No but it argues against the validity of carbon dating which is the basis for aging fossils that evolutionist use as the basis for their entire theory.

For example. A scientist ages a bone of "ancient man" and says that it is 400,000 years old because it is 10,000 years older than an index fossil. However, the index fossil (which is accepted to be 390,000 years old because that is when all known members of said species went extinct) is in fact only 200 years old because the species is not truly extinct. So in result, the "ancient man" fossil is actually 10,200 years old and is in fact the fossil of a monkey or ape, not of ancient man.

Ah, the carbon dating lie. Another creationist workhorse. Guess what, Sunny Jim: first of all, carbon dating does work as long as it's used properly. Second, carbon dating isn't the only way to determine the age of fossils. You don't even know that, and you expect me to believe you have an up-to-date understanding of the fossil record?

So again, your argument is that somewhere along the line DNA suddenly made a left turn and new beings unlike any before them suddenly came into existance.....There is no scientific data to prove that there has ever been a spontaneous birth of a being with entirely different DNA from anything that ever existed before. The idea that "Mitochonrial Eve" and "Y-Chromosomal Adam" just suddenly appeared one day and were totally different in appearance and genetic make-up from their ancestors is preposterous.

Dogs give birth to cats lie for the third time.

The reality is that, if you believe in evolution then you believe that a lot of "lucky" things happened and accept that, in spite of lack of scientific data, that many things are true.

My beliefs revolve around my decision to believe facts, not theories.

Well, do I think I'm lucky to exist when there was never any guarantee that I would exist, or that I would even be able to exist? Yes. Do I think a bunch of conditions and life forms were magically put in place to make that possible? No. Evolution is not an overall random process. Mutation is random, but natural selection is not random. Basically it's like a random number generator with a non-random filter.

As for your beliefs, I'm willing to bet you don't have a single fact to back you up. Since you're a creationist, you're probably a Biblical literalist. Guess what, Sunny Jim...you can't take a page out of Kent Hovind's book and say that if you can prove evolution wrong (which you can't and never will be able to) that must make Jebus true. It's not one or the other. The validity of evolution and the validity of the Buy-bull are completely separate issues. You want to claim your beliefs have a factual basis, then PROVIDE it, don't just sit there and whine about how evolution can't be right because it doesn't make you feel like the mostest specialest in your heart.

[Crater_Satori]

I am unsure why the theory of Evolution insults religious people so much....

Science was never started to disprove God...it was supposed to explain God and the world he created. Now I do not subscribe to any specific religion but I am spiritual. I will never insinuate that I or anyone else for that matter has "Thee" answer to our origins, no one on this planet has that knowledge....period. Not a test tube...and Not a Book.


Back to the topic at hand...

I watched the "Ardi" documentary on DC on the weekend as found it facinating. It seems every few years we push back on ancestry even farther. Ardi was an awseome / weird creature for sure....Human & Chimp features. It is so crazy sometimes to think about where we came from. At the end of the Ardi documentary they were stating that recent finds from the same areas could push our ancestry back even farther to some 5.5 million years ago...can't wait for some more info regarding those findings.

And the work that went into recreating Ardi was also awesome. The drawing alone took two years to complete!!

[duane1969]

I am not religious, I am agnostic. I simply refuse to accept a theory that says my genes were passed down by ape-like beings without proof. And I refuse to accept that some random fossil found in some random hole in some random country is proof that I came from monkeys.

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

gatorboy, I understand what a theory is in relation to science, and the fact remains that it is just an educated guess, with emphasis on the guess. There is a specific difference between scientific theory and scientific fact, one is lacking in factual data, the other is proven by factual data. The fact that evolution continues to be a theory after nearly 2 centuries is proof enough for me that the conjecture and presumptions that support evolution are just that, conjecture and presumptions.

Can I prove evolution wrong? Nope. And you can't prove it is right. That is why it is still a theory.

I choose not to respond to your individual comments because you have resorted to low-ball attempts to insult me and claim that I am less than intelligent. You have resulted to the standard, typical, liberal tactic of being insulting and demeaning to try and win your point, so I concede, you clearly came from a monkey. Have a nice day.

[gatorboymike]

I am not religious, I am agnostic. I simply refuse to accept a theory that says my genes were passed down by ape-like beings without proof. And I refuse to accept that some random fossil found in some random hole in some random country is proof that I came from monkeys.

Well, since you've proven that you have no problem lying to advance your agenda, I'm forced to assume you're lying here. I've never met a creationist who wasn't religious, and I know of no reason why anyone who didn't have a weak and groundless religious dogma to support would be a creationist. If you were not religious, then you would have no reason whatsoever to be as stridently and dogmatically anti-evolution as you are. The proof is out there, but you choose to ignore it so you can pretend it doesn't exist.

gatorboy, I understand what a theory is in relation to science, and the fact remains that it is just an educated guess, with emphasis on the guess. There is a specific difference between scientific theory and scientific fact, one is lacking in factual data, the other is proven by factual data. The fact that evolution continues to be a theory after nearly 2 centuries is proof enough for me that the conjecture and presumptions that support evolution are just that, conjecture and presumptions.

Can I prove evolution wrong? Nope. And you can't prove it is right. That is why it is still a theory.

I'm done trying to explain this to you, as it has become painfully evident that your problem is not just ignorance, but willful ignorance. You can't reason with unreasonable people, and every minute I try talking sense into you is one of a finite number of minutes that I will be alive in this world now gone and wasted, never to be returned. I refuse to continue to allow you to rob me in this manner, and shall be ignoring you from this point forward.

I choose not to respond to your individual comments because you have resorted to low-ball attempts to insult me and claim that I am less than intelligent. You have resulted to the standard, typical, liberal tactic of being insulting and demeaning to try and win your point, so I concede, you clearly came from a monkey. Have a nice day.

[champ1985]

Where's your evidence? In science, we don't just take somebody's word on faith.


of course you do...it's called theory weather you base it on what you think something means or not it's still somebody word. No proof in theory or it would counted as fact.

[drtom2005]

Where's your evidence? In science, we don't just take somebody's word on faith.


of course you do...it's called theory weather you base it on what you think something means or not it's still somebody word. No proof in theory or it would counted as fact.

Champ I am sorry to be repeating what gatorboy said but you just do not understand science man.

The information levels go like this:
fact(lowest)
hypothesis
theory(highest)

A theory is a multitude of confirmed facts(from repeated expeiments or observations) that make up a unifying idea in science. Theory is the highest level of evidence in the biological sciences.

Theory in science is not the common usage in the English language. Theory is a big deal.

As for evidence, you need to read about the fossil record and the one thing others can not distort, DNA evidence. All species are transitional. Every fossil and animal are transitional species. This is much evidence.

[champ1985]

Champ I am sorry to be repeating what gatorboy said but you just do not understand science man.

The information levels go like this:
fact(lowest)
hypothesis
theory(highest)

A theory is a multitude of confirmed facts(from repeated expeiments or observations) that make up a unifying idea in science. Theory is the highest level of evidence in the biological sciences.

Theory in science is not the common usage in the English language. Theory is a big deal.

As for evidence, you need to read about the fossil record and the one thing others can not distort, DNA evidence. All species are transitional. Every fossil and animal are transitional species. This is much evidence.

par for course...fact in science is the lowest form of truth....geez

[drtom2005]

par for course...fact in science is the lowest form of truth....geez

No a fact doesn't mean anything until you can prove it and apply it.

Here are examples of facts:

Elephants are pink.
Unicorns are real.
The earth is flat.


All of these are false statements but are facts. This is why facts are the lowest form of evidence, they are unproven. Facts can be true or false.

[champ1985]

No a fact doesn't mean anything until you can prove it and apply it.

Here are examples of facts:

Elephants are pink.
Unicorns are real.
The earth is flat.


All of these are false statements but are facts. This is why facts are the lowest form of evidence, they are unproven. Facts can be true or false.

sorry I use websters
Main Entry: fact
Pronunciation: \ˈfakt\
Function: noun
Etymology: Latin factum, from neuter of factus, past participle of facere
Date: 15th century

1 : a thing done: as a obsolete : feat b : crime <accessory after the fact> c archaic : action
2 archaic : performance, doing
3 : the quality of being actual : actuality <a question of fact hinges on evidence>
4 a : something that has actual existence <space exploration is now a fact> b : an actual occurrence <prove the fact of damage>
5 : a piece of information presented as having objective reality

— in fact : in truth

was unaware science had a different definition