Astonishing News on Human Evolution! Or...Maybe not.

Don't these findings go along with what most people believe - that humans are created in the image of God? Funny how you evolutionists just don't get it.

--Um...no they don't go along with what YOU CLAIM most people believe. Somebody doesn't get something, anyway.
M.L.

The fact that there were many similar human like species living at the same time points to the fact that they are all related and all descended from a common ancestor.

"Don't these findings go along with what most people believe - that humans are created in the image of God? Funny how you evolutionists just don't get it."

whaaa??

Anyways, all crazyness aside, this does make sense. If a segment of population evolved during a period of time that did not require movement(of the population), their genes would not be introduced to the remaining pool right away. Thus it seems more than reasonable for two differnt branches of the same evolutionary limb, if you will, to exist at the same time untill one is either integrated into the other, one goes extinct or they finally speciate(is that a word for when they become different species? if it is thats what i meant :D)

The potential for new study is very exciting. This finding also opens up some interesting possibilities for other hypotheses from a co-biogenesis location to panspermia. Even if life did not gain a foothold there, the consideration of those locations as "life boats" throughout some of the early rough times of this planet is very present. I'm sure that has been discussed among the scientists studying the find.

--Hard to imagine them discussing it, since it's not even comprehensible. What the heck are you talking about?
ML

I'm not clear on what Homo habilis and Homo erectus existing at the same time has to do with human beings having been created in the image of God. Does one contradict, or support, the other? I don't understand the connection.

"I'm not clear on what Homo habilis and Homo erectus existing at the same time has to do with human beings having been created in the image of God. Does one contradict, or support, the other? I don't understand the connection."

I completely agree with you. first time, ever hehe

"Don't these findings go along with what most people believe - that humans are created in the image of God?"

It might explain why certain fundies are little more than cave men though...;)

--That guy on the Geico commercial is going to be very upset with you.
M.L.

Barton: I agree that whom ever made that arguement did not fully support it. But, being that I believe in creation, I agree with his stance.

How our species came about has always been a matter of speculation. Obviously, no one was there to write about how man came about. No one could analyze the data at the time, no one could make a video recording of the event. So we look back using the evidence given to us to make a decision.

I would argue that whether you believe in creation or evolution, the basis for your conclusion is the same. You've taken evidence for your cause and chosen to believe in it. Anyone that argues that they have a cold case for creation is fooling themselves; the nature of creation insists that mankind remain in some level of mystery about it. On the other hand, anyone that argues that evolution is the only way things could have happened is full of it too. Show me a video of the progression of species over the history of mankind and we'll talk.

Obviously, such evidence is impossible. Then all we can really do is judge the evidence given and make a decision as to where to place our beliefs. Whether "scientists" like to admit it or not, all they are really doing is placing belief into an idea, much like the "religious" people do. Ideas from both groups are equally fallible. So, my belief that God created man should be held to no lesser value than your belief that man evolved from beast.

--Do you actually understand the evidence in favor of evolution? I kind of suspect not.
M.L.

The last sentence of the article is potentially pretty important.

"As the earliest secure evidence of Homo is found outside the known region of overlap4, it is nonetheless possible that H. erectus evolved
from H. habilis elsewhere, and that the Turkana basin was a region of secondary contact between the two hominin taxa."

The tendency for us to overanalyze the report is tempting, but the basic premise of the article is that these two species lived in a similar area at roughly the same time (and for a long period of time). While that makes H. Habilis evolving specifically into H. Erectus unlikely, that dosen't render it impossible that H. Erectus arose from H. Habilis earlier and the two species developed independently of each other for a long time does it?

Either way, this dosen't seem much more than a subtle rearrangement of the preconcieved branching in the pathway of human evolution, not surprising. It's definately important and worthy of discussion, but I don't think it's that earth shattering in my limited expertise.

--And I agree.
M.L.

ML: Do I understand the evidence of evolution or have I heard of all of it? I'm confident I understand all of the evidence concerning the theory of evolution I have heard of, thank you. Whether I have heard it all is a different story. If you'd like to discuss my understanding of the topic I'd be more than happy to, but that was not the point of my comment.

--But it was the point of mine. If you really have seen a reasonable amount of evidence in favor of evolution, and you really do understand it, then the only way you can argue that Biblical creation is equally valid is for you to claim that God created overwhelming evidence for evolution in order to fool us. Is that what you believe?
M.L.

"I would argue that whether you believe in creation or evolution, the basis for your conclusion is the same."

As been discussed before, species can and do evolve. Despite what Jerry Falwell has told you, there is no contradiction between the bible and evolution. The main difference comes at the origin of the earth. However, even this doesn't contradict the bible. Wouldn't God have to create the earth somehow? One issue is time, where the translation into the English "days" from a piece of writing that isn't the original, or even the original language. In fact some scholars believe that the correct translation would be "periods of time"

In short, science is the explanation of how the world works. This has nothing to do with whether God exists or not. The basis for the conclusion that evolution doesn't exist, comes not from examining the evidence but listening to half-baked theories from people not qualified to speak on the subject matter.

JordanT: I completely agree that science is our explanation of how the world works. It is your opinion that it has nothing to do with the existance of God, and your opinion, like all others, deserves protection and respect. And yes, it is apparent that species evolve or adapt to their environment over time, few would argue that. However, all scientific "fact" is a theory that we have come up with to explain some phenomena, and a "good" theory is one that a) has much "supporting evidence" (which is determined by wide acceptance, not by infallibility) and b) stands up against numerous attempts to discredit it, nothing more. While evolution as an explanation for mankind's origin could certainly be considered a "good" theory by these standards, it is still crippled by the same flaw that cripples the rest of scientific fact: human thought IS fallible, as much as we may love to think otherwise. Mistakes HAVE been made, and always WILL be made. On some level, we have to say "OK, I have been presented enough evidence to personally accept this, regardless of whether it is truth or not". And this certainly does not just apply to science... the rest of the world is held by this rule as well, including the realm of religious belief. So in essence, "whether you believe in creation or evolution, the basis for your conclusion is the same."

But really other than that shpeel, I agree with you. The universe would have to come about some how, and days could have certainly been a misinterpretation... we're fallible right?

--Sure, but some theories have way more evidence to support them than others do. They're not equally valid.
M.L.

Any supporter of creationism is just giving in to wish-fulfillment.

And I disagree about what you say a "good" theory is. A good theory is, indeed, supported by much supporting evidence. But I assure you that what determines the value of supporting evidence is NOT wide acceptance. It is, indeed, judged by how infallible it is.

You mock many great scientists, such as Galileo, who was correct about the heliocentric view of the universe. Remember what the church (and most certainly the world at large) said about that.

ML:
1) Do I believe that God created the evidence to fool us? No. I think we are misinterpreting observations... which happens in the scientific community all the time, as you should know.

2) Its not the amount of evidence available, but our confidence in the evidence that is given that affects our views. So a theory that has far less evidence to support it than one that has a heaping pile of it can still be popular if confidence in the little amount of evidence surpasses the confidence in the heaping pile.

For example, my evidence for belief in God isn't a logical interpretation of facts, it was a physical experience. That counts loads more in my book than number crunching. But that's just me.

Sonny: I don't really think you're arguement is an issue. Both points were there... what is considered a "good" theory must obviously be accepted by a majority of people, otherwise they wouldn't call it "good". They would call it "bad". Now, that has nothing to do with its fallibility, which over time affects its acceptance in society, and can change it from a "bad" theory to a "good" theory or vice versa. And saying that a "good" theory is only determined by its fallibility is good only in theory (sorry about the pun); fallibility is also decided by wide acceptance, so even if a theory IS fallible, enough people have to believe it is for it to be "bad".

--Misinterpretation of evidence does happen all the time. However, when evidence for a theory consistently points to the validity of that theory more and more strongly, and consistently so over time (in this case, more than a century), at some point the intellectually honest person has to give up the "misinterpretation" idea.
M.L.

ML: And evidence for creation has consistantly supported its validity for far longer (6,000 years if you're a strict constructionist), so I'm afraid I'm not buying your arguement. Once again, its not the amount of evidence or even the amount of time the evidence has been doing its job, its the confidence a) the community and b) the individual has in it.

--I'm curious about what you say, or would say, to people who insist that they've been abducted by aliens or that the moon landings were a hoax.
M.L.

"evidence for creation has consistantly supported its validity for far longer (6,000 years if you're a strict constructionist), so I'm afraid I'm not buying your arguement."

Now that's a real stretch. There is no evidence for creation at all and there never has been. Supernaturally mediated creation is a matter of faith alone.

I've heard a lot of creationists assert that there is evidence, but they have yet to provide any. What they provide instead is ignorance, incredulity, fear, threats and limited imagination.

Zachary let's take a turn at looking at the Bible. The Old Testament, especially Genesis, viewed from a disinterested party could be seen as a myth of our ancestors told between two warring factions: the hunters and the gathers. Now we know these two groups existed in the same area at the same time. The only difference between the hunter/gatherer relationship and the habilis/erectus relationship is that the hunter/gatherers could not get along because they were competing for the same resources. Yes, the Bible is a great source for moral learning for many cultures. And yes, I am a fan (I especially enjoy the New Testament). But no, arguing that it empirically shows our correct ancestry is foolish. Your argument after being boiler-plated is basically if "the glove don't fit, then you must acquit" despite mountains of evidence to the contrary.

can we actually hear any of this evidence for creationism? evidence that isn't just trying to refute specific points of evolutionary theory? it would help in the discourse.

oh, and Mr. Petit, i tried clicking on your name, but it's a dead link.

[[Now that's a real stretch. There is no evidence for creation at all and there never has been. Supernaturally mediated creation is a matter of faith alone.

I've heard a lot of creationists assert that there is evidence, but they have yet to provide any. What they provide instead is ignorance, incredulity, fear, threats and limited imagination.]]

highly disagree. please think all the way back to the beginning... something had to start it all. and when you come to terms with that fact. you will then began to kinda understand that the evidence is in just about every thing around.
I understand were your comming from about the assertions of some creationist.you got to understand not all believers of creation and evolution are scientist so some times times your going to get the villigers fire and pitch forks.
evolution and creation are still just theories that are competing with each other like a stock share. but education imposes the theory of evolution as fact on students that arent even old enough to understand the word theory. I my self am a creationist, not just because of religion but because I was also force fed evolution until I started to research all the pieces as a whole. one that sparked me to go study for myself was the fact that my teacher tried to get me to believe that a monkey fell out of a tree that he couldn't climb back up. so since he couldn't climb back up he evolved. and whats scary is that they taught this to 140 students in the class. Yes I could have followed along and got an "A" but everything thats in a text book is not always deemed correct.

not all creationist are stuck back in time.
but check this creationist out
http://www.drdino.com/articles.php?spec=59

"highly disagree. please think all the way back to the beginning... something had to start it all. and when you come to terms with that fact. you will then began to kinda understand that the evidence is in just about every thing around."

This only works if you insist on labeling the universe as a creation. I for one like to think of it as existence. yay, problem solved, you don't need an 'existor' to have an existence.

dang it, i hate to admit it, but Dr. Dino is right. evolution has not been totally and irrefutably proven along the entire spectrum of history.

i now realize the truth: the world was in fact created in 18,000 years, which was the amount of time it took the great Pangu to push the sky away from the earth and form the world, at which point he was laid to rest and his various body parts became the physical aspects of our planet. and his fleas became the first humans.

i mean, it makes sense. think back to the beginning: something had to start it all. the evidence is in everything.

Mr. M.L.
for the evolution theory. has macro evolution been proven yet?

--There is enormous evidence supporting "macro" evolution. And no significant evidence against it.
M.L.

"please think all the way back to the beginning... something had to start it all. "

This is just another example of creationist ignorance, incredulity, and limitation. It is a leap of faith, not a product of reason or evidence.

As I understand it, in modern cosmology (which is separate from biological evolution) "time" is a meaningless term prior to the big-bang. Just because we have not arrived at a firm understanding as to how the big bang and the whole shebang got going does not mean that a supernatural entity exists.

Adding a supernatural layer to our understanding of the universe doesn't provide any answers, it only multiplies the questions.

It sounds as if you had an unfortunate experience with a science teacher. That is truly regrettable. But if you think you understand evolution, you are mistaken. Anyone who doesn't recognize that "evolution" is a term used for both the fact of evolution and the theory of evolution is not adequately informed on the topic.

Evolution (the fact - highly simplified version) is the genetic changes in populations of living organisms.

The fact of evolution is explained by theorie(s) of evolution. The modern synthesis includes natural selection, random drift, and other mechanisms. In the past, the fact of evolution was explained by other theories, such as Lamarkism, or by religious conjecture.

You may find some useful information at the TalkOrigins web site.

[[This only works if you insist on labeling the universe as a creation. I for one like to think of it as existence. yay, problem solved, you don't need an 'existor' to have an existence.]]

the universe is energy. please read
The 1st Law of Thermodyamics simply states that energy can be neither created nor destroyed (conservation of energy). Thus power generation processes and energy sources actually involve conversion of energy from one form to another, rather than creation of energy from nothing.

JM5000 wrote: "something had to start it all."

Why? Quantum physics predicts and demonstrates events that have no causes.

JM5000 wrote: "my teacher tried to get me to believe that a monkey fell out of a tree that he couldn't climb back up."

Obviously you weren't paying attention because is not what the theory would say about human evolution. But on another point, you rejected science because you didn't like how the ToE was applied to humans?

JM5000 wrote: "evolution and creation are still just theories that are competing with each other like a stock share."

Really? I've got some stock in these nice little subprime lenders I'd like to sell you. It's about the same value as creationist stock.

*pulls out the clue bat*
Creationism can't even get onto the track to compete.
*wham*

Everyone: Sorry about the dead link, working on it.

ML: How is that at all relevant? Aliens? And I never discredited evolution, I've been suggesting that we be tolerant and open of other views as well.

Everyone (again): My personal evidence, as I've stated, is a physical experience. However, I can logically make sense of creationism with all of today's observations. Give me an instance in nature and my belief can support it. How is a belief of evolution any different? However, if you'd like something to chew on for a bit, consider that drawing an ace, king, and queen of the same suit out of 6 cards in a deck has the odds of (I think) something over 10,000:1. Now lets get more complex... like for example the appropriate level of hydrogen and oxygen to exist on a planet to support life of this magnitude. And let's make it the correct temperature. And let's make the air pressure bareable. And so on and so forth. I can't imagine all of that happening on a whim. I'm sure you all can support this with your own theories, but there you have it.

"the universe is energy. please read
The 1st Law of Thermodyamics simply states that energy can be neither created nor destroyed (conservation of energy). Thus power generation processes and energy sources actually involve conversion of energy from one form to another, rather than creation of energy from nothing."

Thank you for arguing on my behalf. Perfect example of why this is existence and not creation.

"Everyone (again): My personal evidence, as I've stated, is a physical experience. However, I can logically make sense of creationism with all of today's observations. Give me an instance in nature and my belief can support it. How is a belief of evolution any different? However, if you'd like something to chew on for a bit, consider that drawing an ace, king, and queen of the same suit out of 6 cards in a deck has the odds of (I think) something over 10,000:1. Now lets get more complex... like for example the appropriate level of hydrogen and oxygen to exist on a planet to support life of this magnitude. And let's make it the correct temperature. And let's make the air pressure bareable. And so on and so forth. I can't imagine all of that happening on a whim. I'm sure you all can support this with your own theories, but there you have it."

Life evolved to fit its environment. Consider the possibilty that there could be many variations on life aside from the carbon based ones fueled, for the most part, by oxygen. In other settings something drasticly different might have come about. But in this setting we came about, noting fantastic about it in my opinion.

Asking if something was the correct type for life, i.e. temperature, is a waste of time. You are happey to use a so called creation as proof of a creator but discount the fact that your existance is ACTUAL proof of the proper circumstances arising that would lead to your existance and not the existance of some silicon based lavaman.

Anon: As I said... you'll have theories to support it. And going back and forth attempting to discredit theories never solves anything. My point was that for things to turn out the way they have with no guidance, I think, is mind boggling. And your "ACTUAL proof" consists nothing more than (probably flawed) observations made by naturally flawed individuals. So is evolution possibly how things came about? Sure. Likely? Who knows. But the same point can be made for creation. Just as I will not accept any "hard" evidence that evolution is clearly how things must have happened, the "scientific" community is equally narrow minded about creation.

--The fact that your mind is boggled is hardly a convincing objection. Your assertion that the evidence is "probably flawed" is without any foundation at all. Give us one piece of evidence for creation, why don't you. Your own personal experience, of course, doesn't count.

"I can logically make sense of creationism with all of today's observations. "

What you are doing is, at best, "rationalization" or magical thinking, not logic.

More proof that evolution is nothing but a Myth:

Many people, when they can't provide evidence for their theory, adopt the strategy of falsehood. Such is the case with many of those who have fallen victim to the propaganda of renowned evolutionists.

If evolutionists want to end the arguments all they have to do is, get their brilliant heads together and assemble a 'simple' living cell. This should be possible, since they certainly have a very great amount of knowledge about what is inside the 'simple' cell.

After all, shouldn't all the combined Intelligence of all the worlds scientist be able the do what chance encounters with random chemicals, without a set of instructions, accomplished about 4 billion years ago,according to the evolutionists, having no intelligence at all available to help them along in their quest to become a living entity. Surely then the evolutionists scientists today should be able to make us a 'simple' cell.

If it weren't so pitiful it would be humorous, that intelligent people have swallowed the evolution mythology.

Beyond doubt, the main reason people believe in evolution is that sources they admire, say it is so. It would pay for these people to do a thorough examination of all the evidence CONTRARY to evolution that is readily available: Try answersingenesis.org. The evolutionists should honestly examine the SUPPOSED evidence 'FOR' evolution for THEMSELVES.

Build us a cell, from scratch, with the required raw material, that is with NO cell material, just the 'raw' stuff, and the argument is over. But if the scientists are unsuccessful, perhaps they should try Mother Earth's recipe, you know, the one they claim worked the first time about 4 billion years ago, so they say. All they need to do is to gather all the chemicals that we know are essential for life, pour them into a large clay pot and stir vigorously for a few billion years, and Walla, LIFE!

Oh, you don't believe the 'original' Mother Earth recipe will work? You are NOT alone, Neither do I, and MILLIONS of others!

PS: Please don't lie about the 'first life' problem, scientists are falling all over themselves to make a living cell. Many have admitted publicly that it is a monumental problem. And is many years away from happening, if ever. Logical people understand this problem and have rightly concluded that an Intelligent Designer was absolutely necessary. Think of it this way, if all the brilliant scientists on earth can't do it how on earth can anyone believe that it happened by accident?????

--Think of it this way: the brilliant scientists have to take into account a wide variety of initial conditions, since they don't know precisely where and and how life arose. I'm curious about how you get to decide how long is a reasonable time for it to take to do this. Perhaps you've been given this deep knowledge by the same folks who proclaimed in the 19th century that if humans attempted to go more than 25 m.p.h. they'd explode.
M.L.

Zachery Pitt,

How can you verify that the "physical experience" you had was in fact a view of reality? I am not saying you are crazy or delusional, but how can you verify, reproduce and document this subjective personal experience as evidence for the rest of us and the world to see what you experienced is undeniably real. Thank you.

--He can't, of course. Which does NOT mean it wasn't real; only that there's no way of verifying it. Which is why belief is different from science.
M.L.

Why? oh Why do all these discussions turn into creationism v evolution?

So what I think is interesting about the article are some of the hidden questions. What brought on the extinction of the other Homo species that had basically the same skills as H. sapiens. Why does the genus that includes the most successful species include only one? Is intelligence a good evolutionary adaptation?

"Please don't lie about the 'first life' problem, scientists are falling all over themselves to make a living cell. Many have admitted publicly that it is a monumental problem. And is many years away from happening, if ever. "

Just because Humanity cannot re-create something that nature took a billion years to create does not mean that it didn't happen. Not everything in nature is re-creatible by current human means, we live in nature we are not masters of nature. You suffer from a fundamental lack of understanding of natural processes and our control over them. This does not mean that God was behind creating the first cell it means that Humans don't live one billion years and our experiments cannot create one billion years of natural history. You can't assume that Humanity will be able to re-create events that took that many years to create. It is not valid to argue that because we are incapible of creating something that it must have been created by God.

James Collins,

Study science and probabilities with a more open mind then maybe you will really understand what you now mistakenly believe you are correctly talking about. Your arguments have been debated many times before and your creationist explanations have not held water and never will.

Consider first that the universe has been around at least 13.7 billion light years, a deep,deep time that is almost beyond our human comprehension. More time and organic processes have preceded us before humans were even around to witness them. The possibilities that life originated somehow though myriad processes are well... nearly infinite.

Anybody who looks at the geological record in a place like the Grand Canyon for instance and proclaim that this stratigraphic record is the result of some Bibical flood, has no real comprehension of the processes and time it takes to produce such a place. Just examing erosion rates that take place in our small lifetimes would refute such nonsense.

If you would take your mind out of places like answersingenesis you might begin to see that real life and science is much more fasinating and intriguing than being self absorbed in religious fantasies, no matter how comforting their supposed certitude can be.

Zachery,

Another point that others may have explained above is that the reason scientists do not generally accept creationism as an adequate explanation of the Earth's and human's origins is that first,is creationism's religious roots which science tries to keep seperate from it's activities because of the subjective and varied nature of religous beliefs.

Secondly, is that with creationism, no matter what scientific discoveries you may concede to accept into your beliefs,you always start with the notion that everything you find to verify creationism must unequivocally agree with your concepts of God. In other words you start with a pre-determimed conclusion that every finding must lead to your vision of God or the Bible and reject any thing that might contradict this presumption.

To be an a scientist,you must be willing to find things that could completely overturn you initial beliefs. As an agnostic I am willing to say I do not know if there is a God our originating supernatural power behind the universe.

An open-minded,ethical scientist is willing to have their theories falsified and overturned as new information comes to light.

Are creationists willing also to risk that? Are you willing to have your comforting notions of absolute truth overturned?

It does not seem so from most references I read about the rigid beliefs of creationists. Perhaps you are an exception.

That is not the way science works.
Science at it's best considers phenonmena (that is in reason)as possible explanations and tests these possible explanations till they find the data that most logically fits the hypothosis.
The observations verify the hypothosis and form the theories.

Darwin and others did not theorize natural selection and evolution by trying to confirm a "wished for" reality. They observed and saw things that pointed to something deeper than they had previously conceived. Some in the past may have been looking for evidence to confirm their faith or the Bible but modern science has moved away from such restrictive notions because science has to be true to the methods which have made it successful. Perhaps that last sentence seems "evil and secular" but this is the dicipline that we depend on for so much in modern life and I am grateful for the scientific method.

As long as creationism maintains that scientific discoveries must conform to a set of pre-determined religious beliefs or spiritual worldview then creationism cannot be on equal ground with the scientific method. You may feel that is unfair,but science has worked as well as it has for all of us because of these rules.

Patrick,The bottom line is that unfortuately the universe, as far as we know is not a place of philosophical certitude and and simplistic answers. The universe has been changing and evolving for billions and billions of years. Humans have only been around a very short part of that.

We and all life here are a integral biological part of this little corner of the cosmos, but that cosmos does not revolve around us or our philosophical or religious beliefs.

I think that humbling realization is a necessary part of our maturity, something we must finally come to accept.

M.L:
Can evolutionists predict when we are going to evolve one more time into a more intellegent creature? (Since everyone uses numbers with so much confidence)
Also if the system is eternal, why do we die?(we are part of the system)
How many scientific facts are out there?Are they going to be the same after a 1000 years? Why would I beleive you now?(Religeous facts don't change)
Yes I have read all the above and more, and am ready to change my beleif, looking for answers.

--You misunderstand evolution if you think it claims to predict when or what the next evolutionary step consists of. All it predicts is that change will happen.

Your question about why we die makes no sense to me. What does the system being eternal have to do with anything?
M.L.

[[So, my belief that God created man should be held to no lesser value than your belief that man evolved from beast.]]

Zachary,

I don't you know what my belief is. I believe that God created man, AND that man evolved from beast (still is a beast, in fact, by whatever definition you want to use). I don't think the two statements contradict one another.

But I'm quite convinced that God did not create man in the way the young-Earth creationists would have us believe.

[[If you really have seen a reasonable amount of evidence in favor of evolution, and you really do understand it, then the only way you can argue that Biblical creation is equally valid is for you to claim that God created overwhelming evidence for evolution in order to fool us.]]

Please don't confuse "Biblical creation" with "creationism." I hold the Genesis creation narrative to be true, just not literally true. The choices aren't Genesis is literally true/Genesis is false.

--I wasn't confusing them in my own mind, but I may have used the wrong term. Thanks for the correction.
M.L.

[[But I assure you that what determines the value of supporting evidence is NOT wide acceptance. It is, indeed, judged by how infallible it is.]]

No it isn't. Where did you get that idea? No scientist I know would ever say some piece of evidence is "infallible." It isn't even a question that comes up. Scientists want evidence to be reproducible or confirmable.

[[one that sparked me to go study for myself was the fact that my teacher tried to get me to believe that a monkey fell out of a tree that he couldn't climb back up. so since he couldn't climb back up he evolved. and whats scary is that they taught this to 140 students in the class.]]

No evolutionary biologist in his right mind would say the above has anything to do with actual biology. Granted, you had a real wacko teaching your class. But that doesn't mean the real scientists are wrong. Please be clear on what evolutionary biology actually says before you disagree with it.

[[Adding a supernatural layer to our understanding of the universe doesn't provide any answers, it only multiplies the questions.]]

It makes the answers possible. The Christian doctrine of secondary causation is what permitted the scientific revolution in Europe, and is the reason science succeeded there and not in ancient Greece, China or the middle east.

If God created everything according to some orderly purpose, i.e. if he instituted natural laws, we can spend time and effort trying to figure out the laws he imposed on creation. But if everything "just is," that puts an end to intellectual inquiry. Natural law originally presupposed a lawgiver. I'm curious as to how long science as we know it will survive the cultural death of theism. There are already signs that science is being abandoned, and I honestly don't think it's because of religion. (Even in the US, churchgoing has gone down over the past few decades, not up.) Certainly the creationists don't help. But the astrologers are not necessarily religious, and neither are the Velikovsky fans, the followers of Tom van Flandern, or the global warming deniers.

[[Why? Quantum physics predicts and demonstrates events that have no causes.]]

Not exactly. It says we can't discover the cause of some events. That's not quite the same thing.

[[If evolutionists want to end the arguments all they have to do is, get their brilliant heads together and assemble a 'simple' living cell. This should be possible, since they certainly have a very great amount of knowledge about what is inside the 'simple' cell. ]]

That's like saying Leonardo da Vinci should have been able to assemble a working airplane, and the fact that he didn't means heavier-than-air flight is impossible. Knowing something about a physical situation implies NOTHING about having the technology to demonstrate it.

[[Consider first that the universe has been around at least 13.7 billion light years, a deep,deep time that is almost beyond our human comprehension.]]

Actually, a light-year is the distance light travels in a year, not a measurement of time.

BPL,

Even though we not have the same worldview about creation, I appreciate your intelligent responses to the unjustified assualts on the scientific method and support of evolution. Thank you.

"13.7 billion light years" Thanks, I will review that subtle difference. I may be using the wrong term but I was associating the fact that with measurments in the universe, you have to take into account how long it takes light to travel in one year to try to comprehend such enormous distances.

--BPL knew that, but he tries, as I do, to correct this very common mistake whenever possible. Actually, though, it isn't really subtle. The terminology is confusing, but the difference between a unit of distance an a unit of time isn't.
M.L.

Thanks M.L.

Here is an interesting link that you probably know about concerning the Powers of Ten.

http://www.wordwizz.com/pages/scales.htm

Note that the author discusses the relationship to time and distance when measuring the universe in a paragragh near the bottom of the page. I will take note to your corrections on this distinction in my future comments or elsewhere when trying to describe the enormity of the universe.

The New York Times article explains that prior to this recent discovery, it was assumed that Homo erectus evolved from Homo habilus. The new evidence shows that they were different branches, that they both evolved from a common ancestor, rather than one evolving from the other. This isn't completely surprising, but it means that the human family tree is more complicated than we thought.

When we find archaeological evidence of some ancient humanlike creature, we hope that it's an ancestor of modern humans, but more and more we find that what we thought were ancestors were actually distant cousins.

Maybe the actual ancestor species lived a very short time before splitting into separate species, too short a time to leave much fossil evidence.

--If that's what the New York Times said, I think the New York Times is mistaken. It's not at all clear to me that this discovery leads to that conclusion. The notion that human evolution was not a linear progression is, as I've stated before, not even remotely news.
M.L.

Just to clarify my point, I think ML may have missed what was surprising about the find. It was not that there were multiple hominids living at the same time. That was already known. It is the specific detail that Homo habilus and Homo erectus were alive at the same time that was not known. This information contradicts the belief that Homo habilus was an ancestor of Homo erectus.

Why is that? How does the new find show that Homo habilus was not the ancestor of Homo erectus? This is a fact about evolution that I hadn't appreciated before reading this article. When a new species appears in an area, its immediate ancestor species always disappears from that area soon afterwards. Why is that?

I'm not positive I understand it, but here's my attempt to put into words what the article hints at: If two species occupy the exact same "ecological niche", then one or the other will go extinct (at least in that area). When a new variation of an existing species appears, it will have essentially the same ecological niche as the parent species. The only way for both branches to survive is if both undergo evolution so that they fill distinct niches. That means that the original species has split into two new species, with different niches. The original species no longer exists, then, only the two "child" species.

--I don't believe that's always the case.
M.L.

For some reason, people keep attacking the idea of God creating the world as a funny little bedtime story that doesn't deserve respect.

Well, it does. The Bible is one of the cornerstones upon which the cultural institutions of Western civilization is found upon. To ridicule the Bible is to ridicule all the thinkers, artists, musicians, and writers before us who thought the Biblical texts worthy of attention.

God doesn't expect us to find out all about how we become what we are now. He only cares that we believe in salvation through faith in Jesus' resurrection and His existence, and that we do our best to follow His instructions as set down in the Bible. He doesn't care if we found out how Australopithecus ate or walked, and we shouldn't either.

Why waste our energies on such trivial matters of purely pedantic interest when children are starving, loved ones sick with cancer, and people living on less than a dollar a day?

It's well nigh past time that we focussed our attention and efforts somewhere else more deserving of our time.

T.

Pedantic...seems a perfect definition for a Bibical fundamentalist and creationist.

How do you KNOW with certainity what God expects us to find out about ourselves? Do you have a direct hotline to the mind of this Chritsian deity like certain preachers and politicians claim to have?

If you wish to focus your energies on something more deserving of our time, then remove yourself from the degreading and stifling environment of fundamentalism and get a "real" life.

While doing the unselfish tasks that you outlined are worthy and necessary,nothing precludes or should inhibit the attention we pay to science and understanding how life works. Science can and has helped do much to relieve suffering.

If we followed your advice by being self-absorbed in the stories of just one book then humans would still be groping around in the real dark ages. The servile state that you would have us in,is a a insult to everything that it means to be an educated,intelligent,thoughtful human who works hard to expand his or her mind and find meaning and understanding and share this knowledege to others.

Why would you willingly choose to be ignorant and scared of knowledge?

Only a mind who is lives in fear of "the forbidden fruit" of knowledge and has a pathetic lack of curiosity about the universe would say NONE of us should be interested in natural history and our origins etc.

That sounds like the person who currently holds our highest office. And just look at the complete mess that one obstinate,reprehensively ignorant and uninquistive man has made of things.

Sorry if my statements appear hostile and may sound elistist but sometimes a obvious lack of rational thought has to be called for what it is. Just as political correctness is not being forthright at times so is giving into (RC)religious correctness.

America is one of the few countries that produces enough food to feed its entire population, yet there are still those who must search through the discarded remnants of others for their sustenance. Why? Good question, let me know what you find out. I think you might be surprized to find out that a lot of the troubles in this world are caused by the ignorance (not a fault) of those who don't study how Australopithecus ate or walked.

As for cancer, it has been a part of human existence for as long as we have walked the earth regardless of whether or not you believe in God. People die (myself included). I'd much rather have a cure for the common cold.

The dollar is an arbitrary means of measuring the value of a good. It doesn't have the same value everywhere you go. The fact that people can live on less than a dollar has absolutely no bearing on the conditions of their life.

I'm not attacking you, though I'm sure from your point of view it certainly can be interpreted as an attack, merely pointing out that your arguments to abandon the quest for knowledge are baseless. I have never ridiculed the Bible or, for that matter, those who believe they have been abducted by aliens, etc. Ridicule is not a rational reason for rejecting an argument. I do, however, believe the Bible fails to properly explain why I am.

Not hard to believe. Apes and chimps share this time with us now. We as people just decided to act like we aren't related. We pretend time has stopped, because our brains have made us aware.

interesting. i agree.

DOCTOR PETER TEIMAN FRANKLIN here,
I wonder if our brains stopped growing or if time has slowed down.
DOCTOR PETER TEIMAN FRANKLIN
Sweden.

--Interesting set of choices. Where did you come up with that strange dichotomy?
M.L.

Hi I will just about garantee that your IQ is W/I 1 S/D of 141. Quality of thought always tells the story. Your replys would be self selected for the brightest members of society. While I am at odds with many of your beliefs. That is to be expected. Hope you do get to see this. Roy Shastid R.N. B.A Biology

--Without knowing who the "you" is in the above, it's a little hard to follow your line of reasoning.
M.L.

تامر حسني-برامج-1-a1-19-b2-78-71-18-21-59-60-58-61-22-42-9-a9-b9-b3-bb-77-65-53-73-56-49-5-84-ss-دردشة-شات-دردشه-دردشات-دردشه
كتابيه-دردشة كتابية-شات
كتابيدردشه صوتيه-دردشة
صوتية-صوتيه-صوتي-شات
صوتي57-63-62-67-6-b6-b7-ab-6-29-75-4-8-82-83-15-16-17-11-12-55-13-72-80-79-25-64-24-51-26-tt-برامج
جوال-مقاطع بلوتوث-مسجات-نغمات-ثيمات-العاب
جوال-تصاميم-هكر-صور-صور
انمي-صور فنانين-ماسنجر-افلام-افلام
اجنبيه-منتدى للتعارف-منتديات
ادبية-منتدى للبنات فقط-العاب-العاب
بنات-سكساناشيد-صور
سيارات-رياضة-تحميل
اهداف-محمد-سياحة
وسفر-منتديات عامة-منتديات
اسلامية-منتديات سياسيه-تعليم
لغات اجنبيه-تعليم اللغه الانجليزيةنكت-خواطر-شعر-قصص-اساطير-روايات-حكم
وامثال-ازياء-منتدى
العروس-طبخ-طب-علم
النفس-برق-موقع
اغاني-مركز تحميلمنتديات-شات-دردشة-دليل
مواقع-مسجات--ثيمات-صور بنات-صور
حب-1-2-3-4-5
6-7-8-9-10-دردشة
بنت الدلع-دردشة بنات-شات
بنات-شات الحب-دردشة
الحب-منتديات بنات-شات
الغلا-صور رومانسيه-صور
رومنسيه-صور فناين-صور
سيارات-افلام-خواطر-ازياء-صور
حلوه-روايات-كويت
25-هيفاء وهبي-بنات
السعودية-موقع عمرو خالد-ناصر
الفراعنة-نانسي عجرم-ياسر
القحطاني-شات-نغمات
نوكيا-قصص وروايات-مسجات حب-مسجات
عتاب-مسجات شوق-
مسجات مقالب-مسجات
نكت-مسجات حلوة-بلياردو-شعر
حامد زيد-ازياء اطفال-ازياء
خليجية-فساتين سهرة-فساتين
افراح-مركز تحميل صور مقاطع فيديو مركز تحميل الصور تحميل صور صور رومانسية رسائل حب موقع باربي صور عيون منتديات صور بنات تحميل الماسنجر مسجات حب مسجات ثيمات العاب للبنات فقط mobile9 برامج الماسنجر مكياج خلفيات تحميل العاب صور أنمي ترجمة نصوص صور حب العاب تلبيس تلبيس باربي العاب ماريو sitemap صور سيارات برامج جوال رسائل الجوال موقع باربي اكواد جافا العاب بنات فساتين صور تلوين اليوتيوب صور مقاطع صوتية مقاطع فيديو للتحميل صور حلوه موسوعة الصور دليل مواقع صور قلوب تحميل برامج windows live messenger 9 عيون
برامج جوال وموبايل Drivers برامج صوت وفيديو تحميل العاب جديدة برامج شبكات برامج حماية برامج إدارة النظام برامج تصميم وفوتوشوب نسخ اقراص و DVD برامج كمبيوتر الكمبيوتر كتب عربية تحميل كتب عربية برامج اطفال برامج بورتابل portable برامج عربية ومعربة برنامج هندسة معمارية برنامج ضغط وفك ضغط تعاريف الأجهزة وخدمات أخرى برامج المكتبة برامج منوعة موقع برامج العاب بنات العاب مسجات مرض منتديات صور صدام حسين العاب تلبيس العاب باربي العاب ترتيب غرف العاب طبخ العاب مغامرات العاب اكشن العاب ميك اب العاب مكياج العاب بنات منوعة hguhf hguhf fkhj tr'-1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138

العاب
ازياء
ماسنجر
توبيكات
نكات
ثيمات
عبارات للماسنجر
ثيمات نوكيا
العاب الجوال
صور
فديو يوتيوب
sitemap1

http://rmooosh.net/vb/
http://rmooosh.net/vb/f68.html
http://rmooosh.net/vb/f68.html
http://rmooosh.net/vb/f59.html
http://rmooosh.net/vb/f60.html
http://rmooosh.net/vb/f86.html
http://rmooosh.net/vb/f87.html
http://rmooosh.net/url/r11.htm
http://rmooosh.net/url/tfser
http://rmooosh.net/link
http://rmooosh.net/url/sms
http://rmooosh.net/up
http://rmooosh.net/url/r7.htm
http://rmooosh.net/url/r3.htm
http://www.rmooosh.net/url/trn
http://rmooosh.net/video
http://rmooosh.net/games

يوتيوب
صور
العب
العاب
لعب
بث مباشر
موقع يوتيوب
فيديو يوتيوب
فيديو
YouTube
موقع YouTube
تحميل YouTube
مركز تحميل
مركز تحميل الصور
تحميل صور
تحميل الصور
مركز تحميل الصور
تحميل
تحميل كتب
تحميل فلاش
تحميل
صور رومنسيه
صور رمانسيه
صور جميلات العرب
تفسير الاحلام
بلوتوث
مكياج
طبخ
افلام
مسلسلات
دليل مواقع
خلفيات
صور حلوه
العاب بنات
العاب توم جيري
العاب سيارت
العاب اطفال
افلام عربية

مسلسل ناس وناس

شات
 شات خوخ
منتديات خوخ
دردشة
صور  
العاب 
برامج
بلوتوث  
صور حب
صور بنات
صور رومانسيه
رسائل جوال
رسائل حلوه
رسائل عتاب