Human common descent ancestor discovered
18-nov-2004
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4014351.stm
Another nail in the creationist coffin. Who's the whitecap now bibleboys?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4014351.stm
Another nail in the creationist coffin. Who's the whitecap now bibleboys?
Comments
Originally posted by MarcUK
18-nov-2004
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4014351.stm
Another nail in the creationist coffin. Who's the whitecap now bibleboys?
Scientists have unearthed remains of a primate that could have been ancestral not only to humans but to all great apes, including chimps and gorillas.
Coulda, shoulda, woulda... Somoene could say that there's still no proof that humans evolved from this thing... I dunno.
Liber... al.. ist?
Jimzip
Originally posted by Jimzip
MarcUk
Liber... al.. ist?
Jimzip
i'd say he's more of a realist.
Originally posted by MarcUK
Another nail in the creationist coffin. Who's the whitecap now bibleboys?
In the USA, there isn't even a coffin to nail. This Gallup Poll report from gadflyer is truly depressing.
This is a religious-political issue here. It won't be changed by any scientific fact unless it is changed from within.
Originally posted by THT
In the USA, there isn't even a coffin to nail. This Gallup Poll report from gadflyer is truly depressing.
This is a religious-political issue here. It won't be changed by any scientific fact unless it is changed from within.
jesus, this country's screwed.
0: the number of creationists soulcrusher knew before coming to college in the US.
This is nothing new.
You have ruined my day.
Originally posted by groverat
THT:
You have ruined my day.
we truly do live in an ignorant society.
Originally posted by benzene
Paleontologists discover "missing links" at the rate of about one or two a year. Once their findings are reviewed by the scientific community, it becomes evident that (in the case of homonids) they are already similar to either a distinctly ape species, or human species. (e.g. lucy, e.g. Ardipithecus ramidus, e.g. Homo habilis/erectus, e.g. Archaeoraptor liaoningensis)
This is nothing new.
benzene, eh? Is that what you've been sniffing? Or are you honestly, and with a clear head, claiming that humans and apes are not related?
Nobody's looking for a 'missing link' to prove we're descended from apes. They already proved that beyond a shadow of a doubt. The scientists are just excited to find an actual preserved fossil that helps to fill in some of the details along the way.
48% of Americans believe that God created humans 10,000 years ago.
Apparently that is true.
Originally posted by Scott
Why does it always have to be some huge battle? MarkUK reads something at BBC so he can feel so superior and be so condescending to people he hates. He has to run to AA and post a thread to let others know how smart he is and how stupid others are. I don't understand the goal.
As you all know the story, Creationism is my issue. Frankly I didn't give a fvck about evolution, but the claims were made and I spent considerable time checking them out. I didn't even know what creationism or the theory of Evolution was until the claims were made right here at AO. But thats in the distant past, and the fact that i decided to check it out was a blessing in disguise a year later when I joined a company that has a couple of Creationists running amok.
I personally don't really care what an individual chooses to base their life ethos on, but there is a large movement of creationists that collectively I do want to take issue with.
Creationism is deceitful ignorance. There are two types of creationist. The deceived and the deceivers.
The deceived are the vocal ignorants who just spew crap without ever bothering to research, check or validate their claims. They can recite whole passages from their literature and make convincing arguments that the average person doesn't have enough of an education to refute. These are the people who aren't smart enough to realise that disproving one theory doesn't prove the other one. Hell, these are people who don't actually know what the scientific theory of evolution actually is. They'll tell you that information can't increase, but dont have a fucking clue what the information relates to anyway. They'll tell you that there are issues with Macroevolution, but decline to tell you that their version of macroE is their own fantasy and doesn't resemble the scientific definition of macroE. They'll tell you a live seal was carbon dated at 29,000 years old, but decline to tell you that a biologist would never seriously carbon date a marine animal. For reasons the're blissfully ignorant of. etc etc ad infinitium...
Then there are the deceivers....They know the theory of Evolution is fucking irrelavent because it describes the naturalistic changes in life after it appeared and it doesn't say that God might have/have not started it off anyway. They know that the scientific definition of 'theory' differs from the every day use of the word, but they'll still tell you its 'just a theory anyway'. They know that 'scientific' MacroE is fully corroberated with copius evidence, but still ask you why a cat doesn't magically give birth to a cow?. They know the reason why marine life doesn't carbon date, but still give you the seal example as evidence that science is wrong. They'll tell you with a perfectly straight face that you'll never assembe a 747 with a tornado in a junkyard, knowing full well it's not a valid allegory of evolution anyway. They'll tell you that the chances of chemicals ever coming together are to the nth power to 1, knowing that there are that many atoms in every square meter of water. They'll sell their books, have their world famous lectures, and like most religious cults, do it only to make money from an ignorant fanbase.
I cannot promise you that the theory of Evolution is 100% the truth of how we got here, but I can promise you Creation theory is a lie based on an nth power of lies.
This is why it is my issue.
Originally posted by stupider...likeafox
benzene, eh? Is that what you've been sniffing? Or are you honestly, and with a clear head, claiming that humans and apes are not related?
Nobody's looking for a 'missing link' to prove we're descended from apes. They already proved that beyond a shadow of a doubt. The scientists are just excited to find an actual preserved fossil that helps to fill in some of the details along the way.
I am claiming that we did not descend from apes. Are we "related" genetically? Yes. We share lots of genetic information. We also have two legs, two "arms", one head, two eyes, etc.
As for your claim that "nobody's looking", you obviously haven't read a lot of the comments being made about this "find". Statements like "Another nail in the creationist coffin." attest to that.
Fact of the matter is, there are plenty of reasonable and very intellegent men and women out there for whom the random natural processes so bandied about do not provide a conclusive enough argument for pure naturalistic evolution.
Fortunately, history has always had those who stand out against the mainstream. Many times their theories turn out to be groundless, and some times they have siezed upon a nugget of truth.
Darwin had many valid points when he said that fitness could be selected for. I think that genetic modification is critical for surviability, but that it is insufficient for generating the massive amounts of original information required to make life.
These finds of "missing links" in no way make my position on origin theory untenable. Even the staunchest of paleontologists will agree that the procession from apes to humans is still patchy at best.
Although at times I still hold to some dogmatic statements, I am a scientist foremost, and a creationist second. My views on origins are not going to be swayed either way by any single find. I have read some very hairy journal articles on theories of biochemical evolution (I try to stick to the stuff I know), and their conclusions, although enlightening, are not persuasive (or are they meant to be). I have also read many articles about creationistic theories that are likewise far from the conclusive evidence needed.
One thing that has always struck me as interesting is the different positions scientists take on the theory (yes, I said theory) of evolution. Biologists (this includes paleontologists) are almost always the staunchest of naturalists. Chemists less so, and physicists the least of all.
It is very easy for a biologist to wave his hands in the air and say "the avian wing then developed like this". For the biochemist, he's thinking about the several thousand proteins and several million bp of DNA involved. It's not such a trivial statement at that point.
Once again, I am not a paleontologist, so I'm trying to make an analogy between statements like "this is an example of evolution" and the complexity of what is really going on.
Originally posted by benzene
I am claiming that we did not descend from apes. Are we "related" genetically? Yes. We share lots of genetic information. We also have two legs, two "arms", one head, two eyes, etc.
As for your claim that "nobody's looking", you obviously haven't read a lot of the comments being made about this "find". Statements like "Another nail in the creationist coffin." attest to that.
Fact of the matter is, there are plenty of reasonable and very intellegent men and women out there for whom the random natural processes so bandied about do not provide a conclusive enough argument for pure naturalistic evolution.
Fortunately, history has always had those who stand out against the mainstream. Many times their theories turn out to be groundless, and some times they have siezed upon a nugget of truth.
Darwin had many valid points when he said that fitness could be selected for. I think that genetic modification is critical for surviability, but that it is insufficient for generating the massive amounts of original information required to make life.
These finds of "missing links" in no way make my position on origin theory untenable. Even the staunchest of paleontologists will agree that the procession from apes to humans is still patchy at best.
Although at times I still hold to some dogmatic statements, I am a scientist foremost, and a creationist second. My views on origins are not going to be swayed either way by any single find. I have read some very hairy journal articles on theories of biochemical evolution (I try to stick to the stuff I know), and their conclusions, although enlightening, are not persuasive (or are they meant to be). I have also read many articles about creationistic theories that are likewise far from the conclusive evidence needed.
One thing that has always struck me as interesting is the different positions scientists take on the theory (yes, I said theory) of evolution. Biologists (this includes paleontologists) are almost always the staunchest of naturalists. Chemists less so, and physicists the least of all.
It is very easy for a biologist to wave his hands in the air and say "the avian wing then developed like this". For the biochemist, he's thinking about the several thousand proteins and several million bp of DNA involved. It's not such a trivial statement at that point.
Once again, I am not a paleontologist, so I'm trying to make an analogy between statements like "this is an example of evolution" and the complexity of what is really going on.
And yet...For all your intelligence and understanding of the issue...How does proving one theory wrong make the other fantasy correct?
I'd hazard a guess that you are an intentional deceiver
Where is the evidence that the Bible IS the unadulterated word of God?
Where is the evidence that the book of Genesis is a literal fact and not an allegorical work?
Genesis 1 or Genesis 2?
Where is the evidence that the Old testament was written by its claimed author under guidance of God, and is not the evolution or 'pillaging' of Ancient Egyptian or Babylonian Astrotheology?
Where is the evidence that the Earth was created <10000 years ago?
Where is the evidence that God created the world in 6 days?
Where is the evidence of a global flood?
What is Gopher Wood?
Where is the credible evidence that Jesus ever walked the Earth?
Why does Adam translate to 'mankind or humankind' in the original hebrew?
Why is the fourth word of Genesis1:1 translated incorrectly?
Where is the 'flaming sword that flashes back and forth to guard the way to the tree of life'???
Why does the 'tree of life' appear an ancient egytian astrotheology?
Why is part of the Genesis story on the Narmer plate 4500BC?
In My [humble] opinion, your 'theory fantasy' has so many holes, your ship sunk before it left the dock.
Originally posted by MarcUK
The deceived are the vocal ignorants who just spew crap without ever bothering to research, check or validate their claims. They can recite whole passages from their literature and make convincing arguments that the average person doesn't have enough of an education to refute. These are the people who aren't smart enough to realise that disproving one theory doesn't prove the other one.
Oh come on now. Not everyone can be an expert, so yes, many people are going to quote somebody they trust. Secondly, when it comes to origins, it really is A or B. You can't have it any other way. Either we came about by chance, or something made us. You might call on the cyclic universe theory, e.g. "It's always been this way", so I guess that might be a third theory. I also suppose someone could call on the whole idealism mumbojumbo. Thread starter anyone?
They'll tell you that information can't increase, but dont have a fucking clue what the information relates to anyway.
That is untrue. What most creationists will say (again, I don't know who you hang around with) is that you need to have information (be it encoded in RNA, DNA, or a protein) to create information. The information might be encoded in a sequence, or in an molecular arrangement of some kind. In short: stored data. It's not a tough concept.
They'll tell you that there are issues with Macroevolution, but decline to tell you that their version of macroE is their own fantasy and doesn't resemble the scientific definition of macroE.
That's a patent lie. Again, I don't know who you hang out with, but even the dumber creationists I've known would define macroevolution (as the scientists would) as interspecies change. (P.S. Did you know the different species of finches on the galapagos islands can mate with each other?) If you really want to pick a bone, do it with the definition of species. That'll make the fur fly in the taxological community.
They'll tell you a live seal was carbon dated at 29,000 years old, but decline to tell you that a biologist would never seriously carbon date a marine animal. For reasons the're blissfully ignorant of. etc etc ad infinitium...
Nevermind the fact that plenty of articles do C14 dating on marine life anyway...
Then there are the deceivers....They know the theory of Evolution is fucking irrelavent because it describes the naturalistic changes in life after it appeared and it doesn't say that God might have/have not started it off anyway.
I guess this sort of makes me a "deciever" oh well...pushing on. This is actually a good point, but you will notice that there has been a big movement toward "intellegent design" that tends to deal more with the origins of life. (What happens from there is generally left up to the individual's own interpretation of the evidence)
As for evolution being "irrelevant", I'm sure several thousand naturalists would like a word with you about that.
MacroE is fully corroberated with copius evidence, but still ask you why a cat doesn't magically give birth to a cow?
Hmm. Really. What "copious" evidence is that? The article you just posted? All we have is dried bones and fossils to look at, and grandiose statements about how it all came from one creature are made. Interestingly enough, the "evidence" on which the genetic changes necessary for all those changes are derived from unicellular studies. Excessive extrapolation anyone?
I cannot promise you that the theory of Evolution is 100% the truth of how we got here, but I can promise you Creation theory is a lie based on an nth power of lies.
Interesting, that. You really haven't given a single reason why creationism is a lie. Only that it is made up of "decieved" and "decievers", which would imply a lie, but one you didn't specify...oh well.
This is why it is my issue.
And debunking fallacious claims is mine.
The few, the proud, the apple-using creationists!
Originally posted by benzene
...MarkUK posted while I was writing my last novella...
Oh come on now. Not everyone can be an expert, so yes, many people are going to quote somebody they trust. Secondly, when it comes to origins, it really is A or B. You can't have it any other way. Either we came about by chance, or something made us. You might call on the cyclic universe theory, e.g. "It's always been this way", so I guess that might be a third theory. I also suppose someone could call on the whole idealism mumbojumbo. Thread starter anyone?
That is untrue. What most creationists will say (again, I don't know who you hang around with) is that you need to have information (be it encoded in RNA, DNA, or a protein) to create information. The information might be encoded in a sequence, or in an molecular arrangement of some kind. In short: stored data. It's not a tough concept.
That's a patent lie. Again, I don't know who you hang out with, but even the dumber creationists I've known would define macroevolution (as the scientists would) as interspecies change. (P.S. Did you know the different species of finches on the galapagos islands can mate with each other?) If you really want to pick a bone, do it with the definition of species. That'll make the fur fly in the taxological community.
Nevermind the fact that plenty of articles do C14 dating on marine life anyway...
I guess this sort of makes me a "deciever" oh well...pushing on. This is actually a good point, but you will notice that there has been a big movement toward "intellegent design" that tends to deal more with the origins of life. (What happens from there is generally left up to the individual's own interpretation of the evidence)
As for evolution being "irrelevant", I'm sure several thousand naturalists would like a word with you about that.
Hmm. Really. What "copious" evidence is that? The article you just posted? All we have is dried bones and fossils to look at, and grandiose statements about how it all came from one creature are made. Interestingly enough, the "evidence" on which the genetic changes necessary for all those changes are derived from unicellular studies. Excessive extrapolation anyone?
Interesting, that. You really haven't given a single reason why creationism is a lie. Only that it is made up of "decieved" and "decievers", which would imply a lie, but one you didn't specify...oh well.
And debunking fallacious claims is mine.
The few, the proud, the apple-using creationists!
I dont care for all the small talk.... Just tell me how and why proving evolution wrong makes your fantasy right. That right there IS the fundamental lie of the creationist.
Originally posted by MarcUK
Where is the evidence that the Bible IS the unadulterated word of God?
Well, first of all I'd have to ask you if you even believed in God, because it would be foolhardy to show you evidence that would be relating to something you don't even think exists. But for the benefit of those out there who at least entertain the concept of a higher being, I'll do my best.
First, it's the oldest holy book that isn't laughably full of scientific holes (yes yes, I know some wiseass is going to throw a whole bunch of verses at me and ask me to explain them. bring it on)
Second, its progression of thought (from the old to the new testaments) makes sense of what I think God would be like. If I had been raised hindu, maybe that would be different, and I'd think the bhagavad gita would be it.
Where is the evidence that the book of Genesis is a literal fact and not an allegorical work?
Genesis 1 or Genesis 2?
Well in this instance I would invoke occam's razor, and say that if God really did make the world x thousand years ago, it's simpler to accept the account at face value, especially if there is not damning evidence to the contrary. (based upon my personal studies, there haven't been any)
Where is the evidence that the Old testament was written by its claimed author under guidance of God, and is not the evolution or 'pillaging' of Ancient Egyptian or Babylonian Astrotheology?
Well, people are debating whether or not shakespeare wrote all of his plays, and he only live a couple of a hundred years ago. So trying to determine which came first, the bible or astrotheology would be difficult at best. However, given the fairly universal stories about creation (and even the flood), why can't they actually trace back to the actual event?
Where is the evidence that the Earth was created <10000 years ago?
Where is the evidence that God created the world in 6 days?
LOL. That's what I thought this whole thread was about. Just because creationists hold a fairly simple theory (God made it) makes us "stupid" and "simple". Am I "stupid" and "simple" for wanting a non-intrusive operating system? As I remember, Mac users used to be characterized as such. I point you to my earlier statements about it being either A or B. If it's not one, it pretty much has to be the other.
Where is the evidence of a global flood?
To quote a charismatic creationist, "Millions of dead things, buried in rock layers, laid down by water, all over the earth." (I guess that makes me a Decieved, doesn't it?)
It's no source of amazement to me to observe the conclusions different people can come to based on the same evidence. Fact of the matter is, many fossils exist in massive boneyards that consist of thousands of species all jumbled on top of each other (and these can be found all over the world in similar rock layers). You name a process other than a flood that can do that.
What is Gopher Wood?
Ah! Finally! Someone has asked that question. Interestingly enough, an inquiry into the original hebrew/aramaic root of the word used in the bible seems to lend credence to a type of man-made material, possibly similar to plywood. I'm sure you would scoff at the possibility that "primitive man" could have made such a item. However, don't forget that the egyptians were masters at electroplating and even developed batteries to do it with. Now that's early ingenuity!
Where is the credible evidence that Jesus ever walked the Earth?
Well, the Jewish (not christian) historian Josephus mentions him, and other writings recovered from (I believe) Rome also make mention about some rabblerouser (as they put it) named "Jesus" in Israel.
Also, places and people named in the bible have turned out to exist after all, even when many archaeologists scoffed at their existence. If you want to know more, ask me and I'll get you some more stuff when I get home.
Why does Adam translate to 'mankind or humankind' in the original hebrew?
Many scholars think that the name "Adam" came to be used as mankind after the original name "Adam" because older traces to the word "soil" or "ground" have been identified. (Which would be interesting, because the bible account has Adam created from soil)
Why is the fourth word of Genesis1:1 translated incorrectly?
Well, if you're using the KJV (which is pretty hairy stuff to read), it's "God". What is it supposed to be?
Where is the 'flaming sword that flashes back and forth to guard the way to the tree of life'???
Well, the "flaming sword" that you are referring to was set in place to prevent Adam and Eve (or their children) from returning to the garden of eden. I believe this was done to serve as a reminder of Adam and Eve's disobedience to God's only command. Presumably, once the garden was destroyed in the flood, the sword was no longer necessary.
Why does the 'tree of life' appear an ancient egytian astrotheology?
Why is part of the Genesis story on the Nermer plate 4500BC?
Why couldn't the authors have gotten it from the same place the author of genesis did?
I welcome these questions, as I don't have anything to hide. I'm not saying I'm some great thinker or anything, just that I have spent a lot of time going over what I believe and why. Having people ask questions only helps me be critical of what I hold as truth, and make sure that it makes sense.