Human common descent ancestor discovered - Page 6

benzene, you might have answered this earlier, but please do so again. How old do you think the universe is?

Well, there go your 'You Never Read My Posts' vouchers. And I won't be lending you any of mine.


As I explained, in two different posts, these sea shells have been pierced to allow them to be worn on a thread.

Using my powers of lower basic cognitive function I would like to suggest that they were carried into the Chauvet-Pont d'Arc cave around the neck of a man or a woman.

Perhaps on the neck of one of the painters of the extraordinarily beautiful and fragile rock paintings that cover the cave walls.



Note the extensive Flood damage on this fragile painting dated to nearly 40,000 years. This Flood (which miraculously left no traces of aquatic life other than tool-pierced shells, eroded nothing and left no sediment of any kind) fortunately left the paintings on the walls of this cave, made in delicate plant pigments and minerals such as haemetite, absolutely untouched.

This Flood also positioned three European cave bear skulls very carefully on what we must call an 'altar' and then drained from the cave leaving, undisturbed, 20,000 years worth of calcium and silica deposits that were found to be absolutely pristine when the cave was discovered in 1994.

These mineral deposits, which form at a predictable rate, have helped us to date the cave's sealing to the end of the last European interglacial (which apparently occurred some time within the last seventeen days if we are to believe the fanatical young earth extremists who helped me write this.)

Now. You tell me how those sea shells got there.

edit: format-unfriendly mammoth jpeg sniiipped


More Flood damage.

But for a flood that can sort creatures by anatomical complexity and prevent flora and fauna from different environmental conditions all getting mashed up together it's probably not too much to expect water that doesn't dissolve water-soluble pigments.

You are assuming the flood consisted of water. You should know by now that the flood was made from the tears of baby Jesus, which, as you well know(!), has entirely different properties.

But Groverat, we can test liquid babyjesustears! In icecores and whatnot!

And look what I found on the Internets. This might help us a bit. What's the minimum age of the planet according to the overlapping, cross-corroborating, biological and geological evidence?


I'd really like to hear a young earther's eye-view on why we can dismiss the evidence of ice cores, tree rings, coral growth and mineral desposits.

One by one, benzene. Take your time.

What's funnier is your diversionary tactics. I spoke about life and thermo with you earlier in this thread, but the issues I had with your position are not as you stated them above, and even if they were, that's not what I brought up in the post you were responding to. Try to respond to the point at hand instead of playing victim to some imagined slight.

Note that these are two different words: evolution and life.

Yes, they are related, but they are different words. One even has a bunch more letters and syllables. I'll add a third word: biogenesis (note the cute nod to the Bible in that word). Though you always wish to conflate the two, they are related but different areas of science.

You keep claiming (in your round-about way, so if it suits you can probably deny it) that both biogenesis and evolution are incompatible with thermodynamics.

To do this, you try to attach to the well-proven theory of thermodynamics your own creationist-defined meanings of words like "information" and "complexity", as if they go hand-in-hand and carry the full scientific weight of thermodynamics.

Your dressed-up version of the watchmaker's argument does not succeed at showing any incompatibility with thermodynamics. Life -- not just in relation its continued existence, but in relation to its spontaneous formation from lifeless matter, and in relation to genetic adaptation over time -- is, in terms of thermodynamics, nothing more than a particularly interesting process of organized energy and matter. Because the Earth is not a closed system, because an influx of energy can be used to create local order with greater disorder ultimately being dumped into space, there is no violation of thermodynamics from either biogenesis or evolution.

If you wish to prove otherwise, then do so. Trotting out lavish displays of your ability to retype impressive-sounding strings words borrowed from biochemistry and physics does not constitute proof. You have to show that the words come to more than "Gee, this just seems to complex to happen by chance!"

No, you have a hypothesis that says the genetic ability of bacteria to adapt is proof that cows can turn to whales.


Once again, you are using the definition of evolution to prove itself. Adaptation on a small scale has occured, (and since that means genetic material was changed, is defined as evolution) However, naturalists postulate that (these small adaptations) and only those are enough to explain all observed genetic variation.


I'm arguing that anything even resembling the massive amounts of changes needed has never been observed. The fossil record is full of perfectly fit animals, i.e. you don't see anything that would resemble a species in transit. You can try and explain it away (as has been done many times) with the puntuated equilibrium model, but at that point, the theory is bordering on incredible.


I simply disagree with that statement. Everyone will admit that we look very similar to chimps. If that wasn't so, Darwin would have never gotten off the ground. I don't think anyone would say that chimps and humans appear "completely unrelated." Heck, I could have sworn I saw a chimp driving a car about a year ago.


Actually, imagine that the cow is made of several trillion entire lego sets, and then you're getting a bit closer to the actual complexity of the thing. I was referring to a single protein being like a bunch of legos.
But ok, let's keep going with this.


Really. How about a half-formed flipper? It's pathetic for swimming, and very cumbersome for walking on. Perhaps you're saying it developed all at once? Yeah...right. S.H.A.R.K.B.A.I.T.


"And then a wing developed!". Uh huh.


Correction: I never said macroevolution was possible in any case. I don't care how long you have. It's never been observed, it's only been postulated.


Try to imagine this: Most scientists accept evolution as a paradigm. Also, all of this "evidence", whether it be patchy fossils, or genetic similarities is completely untestable. Additionally, in the testable areas, it's never been confirmed, or even observed.


I was asked how old the earth was (I don't know exactly), but not the universe.
A seemingly simple question, but one that has an exceptionally complex answer. I believe I was asked to explain the "starlight and time" theory, so here goes: (the ultra-concise version)

Gravity (an effect of mass) has an effect on time. This is well known by physicsts. i.e. the fabric of spacetime.
If the universe does not have equally distributed mass (which is actually being discovered to be true), then areas in spacetime where density is high, time will go very slowly. (This has already been postulated many times about the "singularity" in black holes, where time stops completely).
The universe is also very obviously expanding. (redshift of starlight, etc.)
If the earth is near the center of the universe, or near one of the aforementioned dense points, time will be slow for us compared to objects in areas of less density.
Therefore, while some stars may in all actuality be millions, billions, or even trillions of years old, the earth may actually be less than 10k. (How old the earth is, I don't really know).
This is actually one of the reasons I picked out the bible as being more accurate than any other holy book. In almost every other text, gods are talked about as existing in the same timeframe as humans. However, the bible talks about God being seperate from time. "A day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day." etc.

These phenomena have actually just been recently observed using the earth's "dent" in spacetime as a measuring point.

The book "starlight and time" was written by the physicist Russell Humphreys, and he goes into a lot more detail, a lot of which makes my head hurt.


LOL. No, I proved you didn't even read your own links, remember?

About the marine shells. I misunderstood you when you said that they were pierced. There are several parasites that feed off their hosts by drilling through their shells. That's what I thought you were talking about. If someone carried them in, we don't need any more of a complex explanation than that.
That said, I don't see how your caves "prove" evolution. They are just caves that people lived in, and in which they drew some very artistic pictures. At some point after that fact, the cave was sealed off by a glacier. How is that a problem?


I said that thermodynamics excluded the ability of complex macromolecues to randomly autoassemble. I have a sneaking suspicion you don't have a clue what you're talking about.


Yes, and no. You really need to pay more attention.
As I've said countless times in this thread, thermodynamics provides no mechanism for which simple molecules will arrange themselves in any meaningful pattern with the addition of energy.
However, although life does have to obey the laws of thermodynamics, it has many mechanisms through which it can link very unfavorable reactions with favorable ones. (and hence propogate itself).
It is you, sir, who are the one clouding the waters here.

Hardeeharhar has done an admirable job of explaning how some of the complex objects seen in life might have come about by natural processes. However, there are just theories, and most of which have never been observed. Additionally, they still fall very short of what would be necessary for even the simplest cell to be formed.


I use those words as descriptive terms, but use the thermodynamic term "order" where appropriate. If you have issues with it, actually point out where I'm wrong, instead of these blanket statements about how I don't know anything and "make stuff up".
What is your background anyway?


Wow. The conclusive proof of abiogenesis is that it's "a particularly interesting process of organized energy and matter". What a crock. That statement is meaningless. Life, and it's processes are interesting, of course, but getting from molecules to life is going to require a bit more than your vacuous "interesting process."


No no no. Go read my posts. You don't have a clue what you're talking about. Dumping energy into an uncoupled system provides no order. There is no "local order" provision in thermo. Energy coupling is the key to life. (Thank you Lehninger)


They are not borrowed. I am a biophysicist, and I use the terms accordingly. You, on the other hand, most definitely do not know what you're talking about. Let bruce do the speaking, we were actually having some fun, since I don't have to reinvent the wheel each time I talk to you "the earth isn't a closed system which proves evolution" people.

Um... way to answer a post.

I wasn't trying to 'prove evolution' using a single painted cave as an example.

I was trying to get you to see that the evidence that the planet is very ancient indeed is ludicrously, ridiculously, there's-an-elephant-having-a-shit-in-my-living-room, preposterously, superabundantly obvious. So obvious that it takes a huge effort of will to ignore it. So obvious that you have to disregard the evidence of your own eyes and hold your own reason in the sink until it stops squirming.

There is no 'controversy'. There is no 'debate'. Only people who won't, or can't, understand what they see.

This is actually an inhuman failure of imagination, and I think that that's what pisses me off about creationists the most.

Anyway. Just that.

Shetline: don't let the guy's condescending, patronising shite cause you to lose your temper. He's very good at that. He's had practice.

Humphrey is a joke, so much so that some of his biggest critics are christian cosmologists. Next time cite something that hasn't been totally discredited and, please, take the time to look up why he's wrong. THe whole 'head hurt' tactic is the pseudoscientist's primary weapon.

What you call a 'biophysicist' I call a kid who just got a chemistry bachelors this year and has thoroughly demonstrated that he doesn't know either what a scientific law is or anything about what newton actually said about gravity. Come back down.

I claim no expertise on biochemistry (I'm a software engineer, since you seem to care to know about that), but I've read Dembski's boot "Mere Creation", so I know the argument you're trying to make here. In his case, I'll give the man some credit for an attempt at good scholarship, and for at least having the decency to acknowledge that evolutionary theory has a lot going for it -- rather than taking the dismissive "What fools!" attitude toward evolution that so many creationists assume.

I'll just say in brief that I found his argument (and this applies to your case too, unless you have something beyond Dembski to add) nothing more than an elaborate "watchmaker" case. For one thing he forgets the statistical nature of thermodynamics -- a big mistake to make at the molecular level. I could go on, but that would be more tangential than I care to be right now.

What appears to be going on here is an elaborate ploy to shift the burden of proof.

I say there's nothing about evolution or biogenesis which is incompatible with thermodynamics. You say back that there's nothing in thermodynamics that proves that evolution or biogenesis are possible.

The evidence for evolution is so overwhelming that merely not running afoul of thermodynamics in any clear-cut way is more than good enough. How did complex living organic chemistry arise from pre-biotic matter? Good question. How does natural selection do such a good job of generating novel structures and adaptations? Another good question. Having answers for those questions would be great, but having those answers is not necessary for proving evolution, nor is having those answers necessary for proving compatibility with thermodynamics.

One of the guiding principles in science is Occam's Razor, often paraphrased as "Given a choice of explanations, the simplest is usually true". But something important is lost in that paraphrasing. Here's the original Latin:

   Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem.

This translates to "Entities should not be multiplied more than necessary". An example from
http://wombat.doc.ic.ac.uk/foldoc/fo...am's+Razor

Which of these explanations better survives Occam's Razor?

(A) The origin, diversity, and complexity of life have arisen from the known phenomenon of evolution on a small scale (the so-called "microevolution" which by now even most creationists accept) expanding in scope, over a broader scale and larger time span, to produce large scale biological development and change?

(B) The origin, diversity, and complexity of life can only be explained by the prior existence of some intelligence -- a prior complex entity, an additional entity, the origin and complexity of which is beyond our ability to explain?

If you wish to assume that complexity and intelligence can arise out of nothingness, or simply "just have been there" all along, why not assume that the known physical universe is the thing itself capable of reaching complexity and intelligence, instead of adding a new entity outside of the physical universe to do the job?

If you wish to condemn evolutionists for not being able to explain each and every mechanism needed to turn non-living matter into complex life, should I not also, and more strongly, condemn you for having no explanation whatsoever for where your Intelligent Designer comes from, how It does what It does, and how It overcomes the problems you say evolution doesn't solve?

Hey, Hassan...

Could you replace those beautiful pictures of yours with links or smaller pictures, so I don't have to stretch my browser window to 2/3 the width of my 22" Cinema Display simply to avoid horizontal scrollbars?

I know this complaint may seem picky of me. Please, don't worry, I still love you.

We have baby Jesus tears in ice? Awesome, first we get that drill they used in Jurassic Park to get dinosaur DNA from amber and then we'll clone baby Jesus!

And then he'll eat a lawyer who is cowering on a toilet.

Aren't they a massive parasitic collective, intent on devouring the galaxy?


Fine, we get that you get the Second Law of thermodynamics.


If you're not an fit animal, you don't reproduce and you die. No more of your schema in the fossil record.

Of course it is not up to me to decide how much evidence is necessary will change your mind. I am merely estimating it will take an infinite amount because religion is the ultimate fallback. It cannot be proven to be wrong.

If you really wanted to know the truth, I would recommend looking into comparative religion and read from the likes of Joseph Campbell. His relatively old works haven't been superceded yet and probably won't be superceded until "evolutionary psychology" matures.

As far as your scientific prowess, maybe you're not communicating well, but you haven't displayed any scientific prowess yet. You can talk the language of biophysicists, yet you don't even understand the rudiments of the scientific method. And as long as you have unfalsifiable a priori beliefs, essentially a belief in magic, the absolute truth will evade you.


Yeah. That is the nature science. It adjusts to new data. The point of laboratory experiments on abiogenesis is to understand how it could happen. To generate some actual data to look at instead of thought experiments. Once there is a handle on how life can arise, predictions and hypotheses can be made of how it could come about billions of years ago, data will be gathered to support it, experiments will be performed to verify it. And refinements will be made ad infinitum.

THey were beginning to bug me too.

Theory: Finches on several close Islands seem to have been selected (as in dog breeding) for features that aid them in their local environments. On this I propose Evolutionary theory -- there are forces which will bias a population towards adaptations (both behaviorally and physiologically) that will aid them to survive more so than their ancestral state in their environments.

My theory suggests that if some of these adaptations occur through genetic changes, there will be an obvious bias towards the gene products that the ancestral species had. This means that when looking at species that appear related (through an independent analysis of rRNA sequences), their gene products should be more similar than those of two species that are distantly related (by rRNA analysis).

You get hypotheses from Theories, you can test those hypotheses. It turns out that the hypothesis that gene products don't change radically between related species (in other words species that have similar rRNA sequences) is true -- evidence that evolutionary theory accurately predicts this result.

This is NOT using evolutionary theory to prove evolutionary theory.

Micro. macro: evolution either way.

(Sexual Selection, anyone?)

Actually, that is quite easy -- trisomy is increased info....

Just to let you guys know (MarcUK, especially):

I've got a harsh set of finals coming up, as well as several projects that are reaching critical mass.
Since I want to research each inquiry thoroughly, it will be some time before I have complete answers for either the scientific or personal questions.

BBL

I hate to burst anyones bubble, but this "news" of a "missing link" has been done many times before. the Piltdown man in my old textbooks was made entirely from a pigs tooth. Anyone remember Lucy? it turned out that she was just a tree swinging monkey. there is not much evidence to suggest to much otherwise with this "news" on BBC.

There's a quality set up for a mom joke there but I'll pass.

Your comment has already been addressed, I'll repeat it here just for you: no one is trying to prove that there is a "missing link" and haven't been since the 50's. The "link" is no longer "missing" and it has been proven beyond doubt that humans are related to, and descended from, apes.

The article plays up the "missing link" angle as it has become lodged in the public imagination but the real newsworthyness of the article is the finding of an old fossil and the scientific information that provides, not that it "proves" human descent from apes.

Hey, who brought the cool kid?

Unbelievable. Another tour de force of mutual respect and tolerance on the pages of Appleinciter.

I knew I should have taken that left turn at Albuquerque.


Folks, Evolution simply doesn't work at ANY level -- wake up and smell the complexity. Speciation works like the dickens, so does adaptation -- but the curtain is coming down on the concept of "Evolution" -- a 100 years of hemming and hawwing on the avialibility of evidences (and what constitutes them) is just too long.

Darwin had his turn, it's time to face up to reality.

Genisis could be literal, figurative, abstract impressionist, you name it -- the universe could be infinite -- there still isn't enough time.

IIRC the pig's tooth turned out to be Nebraska man.

The consensus is not that humans are descended from apes, but that humans and apes are both descended from the same extinct creature (which was probably "apelike", since humans are certainly apelike). Therefore, there is no "missing link". A human-ape common ancestor is not a link any more than a dinosaur is a link between a robin and a gecko.

Another fine example of proof by vigorous assertion. Repeat until true.

PS: When you've got a good explanation for how saying "God did it!" solves your vexing complexity problem, rather than just adding a new entity and moving the same problem into a new box with a different label, do get back to us.

Pfft. Concerning the floods... I'm in hydrology. I might be a hydrologist. You make me laugh kid.

And as for calling marcUK a troll. Look at your post count. Look at his. He is bigger. Size matters. You lose!

Someone please prove God or Creationism or something. Stop boring me.

Tolerance from dmz (a Bushie) hahahaha!!!! So you're saying... "Why can't you be tolerant of my intolerance!"

Pfft. You don't have a grasp on...infinity either it seems.

Man you guys should go to high school, and college, and get back to us.

You seriously lack information.

I shudder to think about all the kids growing up in the South.

I don't have the smilie I need. This is, well, it's a lie, I think. It's contemptible, anyway.




While this is just, well, contemptible. This is just wrong; it is not true, or right, or accurate (or 'correct', if you like). There's been no sudden controversy. Researchers in laboratories across the globe aren't stepping away from their computers shaking their heads, going 'something's just not... right.' The letters pages in peer-reviewed journals aren't filled with articles with new evidence causing people to reappraise their lives' work.

Its just not happening.

Sorry, and all.


The Yoruba idea that the world was created when Obatala climbed down a white sheet with a five-toed chicken, a snail shell full of earth and some palm kernels could be literal, figurative, abstract impressionist, you name it -- and there's no more and no less evidence for it than Genesis Chapters One and Two (which I've been reading lately, and absolutely love.)

[edit: had a bad morning and dmz was in the firing line. Better now. Sorry.]

I thought that technically humans *are* apes (along with common & pygmy chimpanzees aka bonobos, gorillas, orang-utans and gibbons, the common factor being "primates with short tails or no tail at all") but I could be wrong.

Some more info: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ape

You maniacs! You blew it up! (etc).

OK here is my favorite thing about Creationists. They are Christian. They have "Faith."

Why are YOUR ideas right, and EVERY other religion's ideas wrong? Why aren't the Sioux or Australian Aboriginal ideas about how we were created more right than yours? HUH? So that is why, no, I won't tolerate your intolerance. dmz I'm looking at you.

Comtemptible foolishness.

I think their vehemence is in direct proportion to their wrongness - inside they know they are talking crap.

No other religion behaves like this, in fact most religions creation stories have a strong component which can be explained as referring to evolution rather than the creationist view. Some even explicitly state evolution occurs - Islam for example has certain key Qur'anic passages and Muslim thinkers stated a theory of evolution explicitly in the thirteenth century.

I heard two parrots discuss if they descended from the birds the other day...

DMZ is not intelligent enough to fathom the complexity of it all, so to him it's simply not possible. "It's too complex, so it can't be true."

Dumb Methodist Zealot