FRIHOST FORUMS SEARCH FAQ TOS BLOGS COMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


New Link in Evolution?





LittleBlackKitten
Was browsing, as I frequently do, for all the cool recently discovered species of earth, because I love seeing these things. But as I went along, I discovered this article:

[link]

Seems they have discovered a skull pre-dating the Homo Erectus, which has more ape-like qualities than even Homo Erectus did?

Thoughts/comments?
Bikerman
It simply confirms what we already knew and what you find impossible to accept.
We now have a pretty complete fossil record of the evolution of homo sapiens sapiens which is irrefutable evidence of our evolution as a species (and adds to the huge amounts of evidence from other fields).
Obviously it will need to be studied in more detail to ensure that it is genuine, before any firm conclusions are drawn - there is an unfortunate history of people trying to pass-off fake fossils. There appears to be no reason to suspect it is a fake, however.
LittleBlackKitten
Dude, this was not an open invitation to bad-mouth my beliefs or attack me in any way. This was an honest curiosity in the matter, not a way for you to go "ha ha you're wrong."

I would appreciate actual intellectual responses from you, not poo throwing. If you can't handle a mature discussion, get out.

Now, any REAL thoughts or comments?
Bikerman
LittleBlackKitten wrote:
Dude, this was not an open invitation to bad-mouth my beliefs or attack me in any way. This was an honest curiosity in the matter, not a way for you to go "ha ha you're wrong."

I would appreciate actual intellectual responses from you, not poo throwing. If you can't handle a mature discussion, get out.

Now, any REAL thoughts or comments?

I was not badmouthing you. The only words directed at you were 'what you find impossible to accept', which I understood to be factually accurate and which are not insulting or denigrating in any way at all.

What did you expect me to say? In one posting you say that you don't accept and will never accept that evolution can account for different species, only for different types of the same sort of animal. In the next posting you reference a clear example of an evolved species of homo...
I did not make a 'ha-ha' type comment - I was very gentle and simply batting it back to you by representing your position as truly and non-controversially as I could in a couple of words. I was genuinely interested to see how, if at all, you reconcile the two postings. Whether your view might have changed, or if not then what YOU think the fossil shows.

If you perceive my comments as 'poo throwing' then I'm sorry that you do. They were not intended as such, but don't issue instructions like 'get out' because that is what we call back-seat moderation and I will not tolerate it.

Now, I thought I had covered what I thought. Basically it is one of many fossils showing a fairly smooth transition from the ape-like Ardipithecus, through Australopithecus afarensis, into homo-erectus/habilus and ending up with homo-sapiens-sapiens.

I am wary because it is a new discovery and many attempts to fool archarologists with fakes have been made, so it needs to be properly examined by as many leading palaeontologists as possible. Presuming it is ok then it is important because it could indicate a new side-chain of evolution in our past. We can trace our limeage, though the fossil record, back about 4.5 million years to the earliest probable ancestor - Ardipithecus. What we still do not know is whether side-branches of species developed and died-off and in what order that might have happened.

So we have the broad outline of the story, but there are still interesting details to fill in.

Now, what do YOU think it is?
LittleBlackKitten
As long as you're not going to tear me apart make judgements or attack what I believe, I will tell you. I fully expect you to respect my thoughts and not point out where you THINK I'm wrong, since all everything is, is a THEORY, which not even I can prove or disprove and I am fully aware of that. Evolution, just as Creationism, or in my case, Evo-Creation Celebrism, is all simply a theory no one will discover until they die and confront their ultimate truth. That said, I believe:

-That this may be a caveman of ape-like qualities, and while it might suggest that there was at one point in earth's history a caveman resembling an ape does not necessarily prove that it is a link to evolution any more than a 6,000 year old tree being the oldest living tree on earth proves Creationism. I believe it suggests at a creator that likes making multiples of a good thing; otherwise, we'd have one kind of bird, one kind of cat, one kind of canine, one kind of monkey, one kind of HUMAN. It is in God's very nature to create multiples of a like species many times over. We're discovering hundreds of new species every year that have been here a very long time, and ever since he started everything, there has NEVER been "just one" of anything. There isn't just one kind of animal, plant, mineral, gas, ANYTHING. I also believe this to be accurate with human kind.

I do not believe we evolved from apes; I believe it is possible we sub-evolved from an ape-like cave man who was simply another multiple in God's hands. I also believe God's purpose for the cavman ended, and as such, they all died, to give way to Homo Sapien.

But, if I'm wrong, which is possible, all it means to ME is that God made us evolve. Whoo. Whop ding. I still have 90% of my faith basis. If YOU are wrong, what do YOU have? If science's main theory winds up incorrect, where will YOU be, Bikerman?
Afaceinthematrix
LittleBlackKitten wrote:
I do not believe we evolved from apes; I believe it is possible we sub-evolved from an ape-like cave man who was simply another multiple in God's hands. I also believe God's purpose for the cavman ended, and as such, they all died, to give way to Homo Sapien.

But, if I'm wrong, which is possible, all it means to ME is that God made us evolve. Whoo. Whop ding. I still have 90% of my faith basis. If YOU are wrong, what do YOU have? If science's main theory winds up incorrect, where will YOU be, Bikerman?


Even though I am not Bikerman, which is who you are addressing, I will respond to your post.

1) Your first sentence is just incorrect. Human beings did come from apes because we are apes. This is by definition. The definition of a great ape is any species in the hominidae family - it's basic taxonomy. The other great apes are chimpanzees, gorillas, and orangutans.

Of course this says absolutely nothing about your faith or viewpoint. It doesn't even undermine it. I am just pointing out what many Creationists fail to accept and that fact is that human beings are apes. I don't understand why Creationists make a big deal out of that because it's only the definition of a world. Scientists who study taxonomy classify animals by certain traits and genetic history. They came up with certain characteristics that qualify a species as an ape and it just so happens that humans fit those characteristics. You don't have to accept that we're related to other apes (even though the evidence is overwhelming); you can think that we're God's special Creationists but you have to accept that we are apes because it's simply the definition of the word.

2) Science does not have a main theory and I highly doubt that any huge theory will be completely wrong because it's not the way science works. In science, you collect data, mathematicians model it, scientists come up with hypothesis, and then scientists test them out. It's all completely peer review and the theories (note that I am not using the word 'hypothesis') are tested over and over before they are even called a theory and they explain every bit of evidence that exists. And once any bit of evidence comes up the the hypothesis or part of the theory is wrong, then the hypothesis is revised to fit new data. Meanwhile, our theories on many things (atomic theory, evolutionary theory, etc.) are so good that it allows us to do amazing things. All of chemistry - which is where many, many things that you use everyday were invented from - is based on the assumption that atomic theory is correct just like medicinal science (which I am sure you have benefited from also) is based on the assumption that evolutionary theory is correct.

So what if for some weird reason it was all wrong (which isn't likely considering the assumptions that it's correct has allowed scientists to make serious advancements)? How would Bikerman feel? Well he is a thinker and I think he would be anxious to discover the real truth... Not just assume that it was all done by magic (God).

You see, this is how science works. It's not how faith works. Science actually works (science heals people whereas I have never seen a valid faith healer) and it's exciting! I often wish I had decided to become a scientist. But I also like to model data and develop methods and prove theorems which is why I went into mathematics...
Klaw 2
First of, I always find this kindof stuff interesting, but as bikerman said we gotta have some experts look examine it before we do anything else with it, as said before. I hope there is some dna in it so scientist can get a clearer picture. But most likely there is pretty much none, it's a fossil.

Afaceinthematrix wrote:

Even though I am not Bikerman, which is who you are addressing, I will respond to your post.

same here...

LittleBlackKitten wrote:
As long as you're not going to tear me apart make judgements or attack what I believe, I will tell you. I fully expect you to respect my thoughts and not point out where you THINK I'm wrong, since all everything is, is a THEORY which not even I can prove or disprove and I am fully aware of that. Evolution, just as Creationism, or in my case, Evo-Creation Celebrism, is all simply a theory no one will discover until they die and confront their ultimate truth. That said, I believe:


Quote:
Now first of you are not using the word theory properly, your own idea is the "normal kind/every day use" theory, you just think it is like that don't have any proof.
Now evolition is also a scientific theory, wich means:
A scientific theory comprises a collection of concepts, including abstractions of observable phenomena expressed as quantifiable properties, together with rules (called scientific laws) that express relationships between observations of such concepts. A scientific theory is constructed to conform to available empirical data about such observations, and is put forth as a principle or body of principles for explaining a class of phenomena.


Since evolution is a scientific theory it is a fact, while your idea is not. If you want to believe it it your choice.

LittleBlackKitten wrote:
-That this may be a caveman of ape-like qualities, and while it might suggest that there was at one point in earth's history a caveman resembling an ape does not necessarily prove that it is a link to evolution any more than a 6,000 year old tree being the oldest living tree on earth proves Creationism.


Actually the fact that we have evolved from other homo (the genus, sort of a sub family). And one skull resembling a human skull indeed doesn't prove evolution. But there is whole line of skulls that have been identified as our ancestors. And the younger those skulls become the more they look like a human skull human. This coupled with other data (DNA etc.), scientist have outlined human evolution pretty well. And this skull only ads more detail to the picture.

LittleBlackKitten wrote:
I believe it suggests at a creator that likes making multiples of a good thing; otherwise, we'd have one kind of bird, one kind of cat, one kind of canine, one kind of monkey, one kind of HUMAN. It is in God's very nature to create multiples of a like species many times over. We're discovering hundreds of new species every year that have been here a very long time, and ever since he started everything, there has NEVER been "just one" of anything. There isn't just one kind of animal, plant, mineral, gas, ANYTHING. I also believe this to be accurate with human kind.


The fact that there are multiple dogs is a result of breeding, humans started to domesticate the gray wolf. Some were bred for hunt others for their ability to smell things etc. basically a result of evoluiton and breeding.

The fact that there are different cats is mainly the same though all cats are practically the same there are more differences between dogs, mainly because dogs have more use. Cats in a more broader sence ie (domestic cat, lions, tigers, lynxs) can be easily explained by evolution.

LittleBlackKitten wrote:
I do not believe we evolved from apes; I believe it is possible we sub-evolved from an ape-like cave man who was simply another multiple in God's hands. I also believe God's purpose for the cavman ended, and as such, they all died, to give way to Homo Sapien.


No what do you mean with this? That we evolved from an almost human, say 95%? And it is impossible that that evolved from something that, 90% human.

LittleBlackKitten wrote:
But, if I'm wrong, which is possible, all it means to ME is that God made us evolve. Whoo. Whop ding. I still have 90% of my faith basis. If YOU are wrong, what do YOU have? If science's main theory winds up incorrect, where will YOU be, Bikerman?


What will people who follow the evidence have when science's main theory winds up incorrect? (BTW there is no "main theory", whatever it you mean). Look our theory of evolution is incomplete and false or incomplete data may have caused scientist to make wrong conclusions. When that happens (and it does) we the damage is repaired a new better explanation is made, like the laws of newton, they were usefull till a certain point then they were replaced by something better, theory of relativity.

Now it is possible that evolution is completely false. But that is VERY unlikely because all current data points to it so far. All evidence pretty much the idea that we evolved from other species pretty much irrefutable.

But what will happed when it is shown that evolution is false? We will just start over. Look at a phenomenon, analyse data, creating hypothesis and testing them, repeat until you have a new law, look at a new phenomenon, repeat until you have a new theory.
Bikerman
LittleBlackKitten wrote:
As long as you're not going to tear me apart make judgements or attack what I believe, I will tell you. I fully expect you to respect my thoughts and not point out where you THINK I'm wrong, since all everything is, is a THEORY, which not even I can prove or disprove and I am fully aware of that. Evolution, just as Creationism, or in my case, Evo-Creation Celebrism, is all simply a theory no one will discover until they die and confront their ultimate truth. That said, I believe:
I'm afraid you may be misunderstanding me. Certainly I do not intend to 'tear you apart' but making judgements about what you believe, based on evidence, is perfectly valid. In fact this is a science forum and science functions by trying to refute hypothesese so that is to be encouraged. It isn't a case of me 'thinking' you are wrong. You simply ARE wrong. To understand why I am confident to say that, you need to understand that you have the wrong notion of what a theory is. Afaceinthematrix does a pretty good job of explaining, but just to emphasise the point:
A scientific theory is an explanation for observations. It isn't a guess. It isn't a 'maybe'. It is as close to factual as science cares to get.

Scientists are wary of words like 'truth' and 'certain' because they are well aware that new data might throw a new light on existing theory. That is how science develops. In the case of evolution, however, the data we have is so vast and so conclusive that the chances of the theory being shown to be wrong are about the same as the chances that the theory of gravity will be shown to be wrong.
In the case of gravity what we will undoubtedly see is new ways of expressing our current understanding. Newton didn't understand why gravity works - he simply calculated HOW it works.
Even today we are still not sure why it works. Our best theory is that it involves a particle called the graviton - but nobody has yet definitively observed a graviton, so we are still unsure.
That does not mean that gravity will suddenly start to behave differently if we DO finally confirm the graviton's existence. What we currently know is fact - it won't suddenly change when a new theory replaces the current theory. Science (and the universe) does not work like that. New theories generally expand on existing theories, they don't invalidate them completely.
In the case of evolution, we KNOW that all life has a common ancestry.* That is not in doubt. Any new theories in evolution will perhaps show currently unknown factors in how that happened, but they won't change the fact that it did happen.

* It may be that we discover that life actually had more than one common ancestor. It is highly unlikely, but not impossible.

Not only did we evolve from apes, we ARE apes. Again this is not in dispute. The fact that creationists don't believe it is really irrelevant. Science is not a democracy and it doesn't matter whether people choose to ignore the scientific evidence - it is still correct.
Quote:
But, if I'm wrong, which is possible, all it means to ME is that God made us evolve. Whoo. Whop ding. I still have 90% of my faith basis. If YOU are wrong, what do YOU have? If science's main theory winds up incorrect, where will YOU be, Bikerman?
You ARE wrong so you can fall back on your 90%. It isn't a contest - believe what you like.

If I am wrong? I'd be delighted. Science is the tool used to describe the universe. If science suddenly says - 'hey, this evolution stuff...didn't happen!', then that would be absolutely fascinating, just as if science suddenly showed that the world actually IS 6000 years old.
Neither, however, is going to happen because the evidence is so overwhelming that it is inconceivable that any new evidence could refute it. If the inconceivable happened then, like any scientist, I would accept the data and work with it. The truth is that the evidence we have is so clear and so overwhelming that, like any scientist, I work with THAT data.
ocalhoun
Bikerman wrote:
If the inconceivable happened then, like any scientist, I would accept the data and work with it.

A bit idealistic there, no? Isn't there usually a good bit of resistance to new ideas, especially when they disprove established ones -- no matter how good the evidence is?
Or will you give me the 'no true Scotsman' argument?
Bikerman
ocalhoun wrote:
Bikerman wrote:
If the inconceivable happened then, like any scientist, I would accept the data and work with it.

A bit idealistic there, no? Isn't there usually a good bit of resistance to new ideas, especially when they disprove established ones -- no matter how good the evidence is?
Or will you give me the 'no true Scotsman' argument?

Not all scientists live up to the ideal, of course, and yes there would certainly be resistance from those with heavy investment in current theory. There are, however, a bunch of young tykes who have no current reputation in the field and would jump on any new data that offered them the opportunity to make one.
Related topics
Domain Problem
What to do??
HUGE FREE LINK EXCHANGE!!
Wonders of the include() in PHP.
phpBB Add Style
Photoshop > Photo Manipulation
Google Ranking: How long does it take to get ranked?
New forum (check inside!)
Need help with Members area/link adder
Link Add Error
Evolution and misconceptions
My Link Bid Directory website.
Quick Link Sharing With Advanced Tracking
Need Comment for new developing site
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> Science -> Earth

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.