To add comments or start new threads please go to the full version of: "Toumai" is indeed oldest known hominid
PhysForum Science, Physics and Technology Discussion Forums > PhysOrg WebLog > PhysOrg WebLog

Neutron
In 2002 scientists discovered a 6 million to 7 million-year-old jaw fragments, some isolated teeth and a skull in Chad (Central Africa), later nicknamed "Toumai" (a Goran language name that means "hope of life"). This fossils came from around the time of a major split in the evolutionary tree, with one branch leading eventually to humans and the other branch leading to chimps.

The researchers argued that the creature belongs on the human branch and so is the oldest known hominid. Some others disagreed.

The new findings - two jaw bones and an upper premolar tooth and a computer skull reconstruction bolster the case that an ancient creature really is the earliest known ancestor of modern humans, researchers say in Nature.
Dennis
Are we "ass u m ing" all these factors because we now have computer gen images that can say this is the way a fossel was, or do we really know how human development took place 4 -7 million years ago?
Rick
Dennis, your comment is barely relevant.
Walter Farley
If we could use existing scientific technology and methodology, assumptions as to the age of artifacts would be acceptable in the overall discussion. Unquestioned assumptions accepted as fact will lead to false positives. Good science means that we make assumptions and then prove or disprove the supporting theory. 5 million to 7 million could just as easily be 50 to 70 million or just 50 to 70. The current aritfact is interesting, the current theories of origin are unsubstanciated. The debate goes on.
Guest_Jones
Rick, why do you say Dennis' comments are barely relevent? Thank you, Walter for actually resonding.
Rick
Guest_Jones, your comment is barely relevant
Guest_Josh
Walter -- Your comments are interesting, but also ridiculous - in that you think a few words on a screen discredit the 3-year investigation of actual scientists. Funny stuff you got there. You try to make these scientists sound like religious crackpot artists who just sat around for 3 years playing with their CGI computers until they found something people would buy. The truth is science is very reliable. Did you know all science has to pass rigorous tests, such as being submitted to peer-reviewed journals and that the experiments and methodologies must be repeatable? For this reason, scientists are (and deservedly) among the most notable professions. Please show us how that fossil could be only 50-70 years old, and we might take YOU seriously.
Guest_Andy
The headline "Toumai is indeed oldest known hominid" suggests that we have just been given indisputable proof of a major "missing link" that the theory of evolution has been relying on for years. Is there proof or is this just another classic case of religious like brainwashing from the evolutionary community? I am not necessarily devaluing the findings of these researchers (although according to the article there are people who think they are wrong in their assumptions- why don't we see their case in this article?) but I do get frustrated with science claiming things as proved when the case is only supported by theory. Is it only the materialist scientist who has the right to graduate a theory to scientific proven phenomena without any real grounds to do so? I am all for creative thinking and theorising but I can't stand it when theories are treated like anything more than they are; an educated, albeit with some reliable observations, guess. The debate about our origins continues and I can't help but continue to believe that we are way, way off the mark in our current thinking. The search for a proof of evolution will forever be affected by the fact that evolutionary researchers already believe it to be true and therefore fiddle their findings to fit the bigger, very likely flawed, picture.
Guest_Josh
Dennis - We now have computer gen images that can say this is the way a fossel was AND we really know how human development took place 4 -7 million years ago. The evidence is out there, but it takes some time and to put all the pieces together. The technology helps speed things up.
Guest_Jones
Josh, you have great faith in science.
Guest_Matt
Actually, current evolutionary theory is highly substantiated, there is no debate there except amongst the un or mis informed. Whether or not evolution is true is not the issue, understanding the complexities of it is. To say otherwise is plain old lame old propaganda and melodrama.
truth hurts
Don't deny it ... God's beautfiul people are all decendants of Africa ... and we treat it such a niggardly way ... is there no love for the Garden of Eden or your cousins.

ph34r.gif
truth hurts
i'd rather have faith in science ... than faith in faith ... you know this all is about reproducible results ... get it ??? what is your criterion of truth ???
Guest_Matt
And there is no such thing as the so-called 'missing link' except in so far as all fossils are 'links'. Another anti-evolution red herring.
Guest_Andy
I have to admire your faith, Josh, in the scientific method. Maybe I am not as well read as you are but I am aware of a large number of researchers who have cast serious doubt over the reliability of certain methods of dating (e.g. carbon, potassium-argon). Evolution relies heavily on the idea of an old earth and so evolutionists can't do anything but clutch onto theie dating methods and block out the opposition (sometimes using unfair character attacks on other knowledgeable researchers). You also say we know about human development 4-7 million years ago. Quite how science has got to the point that allows people to believe themselves when making comments like that is beyond me.
Guest_Josh
Andy -- First of all, the article does not claim this is a missing link. It clearly states that this is part of the hominid branch - meaning, it was a species that developed from an earlier ancestor - just like chimps. Both branches, chimps and hominids, branched off at some point earlier. Second, evolutionary theory does not subscribe to the missing link theory anymore. Like I said, these are separate branches. (If you really want to get technical, humans and chimps are the missing links -- as we are over 98% genetically identical). Third, you forget that the people writing the article also have an agenda to sell their story so they may take certain liberties in reporting the findings. An actual published science finding report would look quite different than the article you read. Fourth, materialism is popular because it works - i.e. it's premises allow us to test and measure the world to high degrees of reliability. Your only complaint is that you don't like how reliable it is. Fifth, scientific theories are not the same as a lay person's guess. This is a common misconception because it's only spelled the same and many uninformed people lead to the same assumption you do. For more on this, read Stephen Gould's article: http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gou...and-theory.html
The rest of your argument is also consumed by your 'frustration' that the world simply doesn't fit your theories. The truth is, science only uncovers what is already out there. Whining and complaining doesn't change the evidence.
Guest_James
The notion that chance could produce one atom, let alone a single-celled creature that could organize itself (no matter how many billion years it was given) into incredibly complex organisms, is scientifically and statistically impossible. The evidence in the fossil record is being bent to fit the evolutionary presuppositions, and that is bad science. Remember the flat earth people? They held to ideas that were debunked by science. It is not religion that is challenging the theory of evolution, it is science itself. Anyone interested in an honest scientific critique should read Darwin's Black Box (The Free Press, 1996), by biochemist Michael Behe.
Guest_Josh
>>Josh, you have great faith in science.<<<
Faith is belief in things unseen. Science has clearly demonstrated its effectiveness.
frankey
Can I use "Toumai" picture for my family photo album?
Guest
QUOTE (Guest_James+Apr 7 2005, 01:09 PM)
The notion that chance could produce one atom, let alone a single-celled creature that could organize itself (no matter how many billion years it was given) into incredibly complex organisms, is scientifically and statistically impossible. The evidence in the fossil record is being bent to fit the evolutionary presuppositions, and that is bad science. Remember the flat earth people? They held to ideas that were debunked by science. It is not religion that is challenging the theory of evolution, it is science itself. Anyone interested in an honest scientific critique should read Darwin's Black Box (The Free Press, 1996), by biochemist Michael Behe.

James -- You have defeated your own argument. Science is the process of observing and developing theories to explain the evidence. If people first believed that the earth was flat because of the known evidence and observations at that time -- and then it was disproved by more evidence -- then science is clearly doing its job. I can safely say you're talking out of your gluteus maximus (scientific term).
Neutron
QUOTE (frankey+Apr 7 2005, 01:14 PM)
Can I use "Toumai" picture for my family photo album?

Only if you really look like him.
Earl Benser
There's no sense in getting into the evolution vs creation conflict. It's a 'no win' situation. THose who believe that some super being just went 'shazaam' and the works was here don't have the time or mental space to look at any other ideas.

(If people postulate a super being who made up the laws of nature, did the Big Bang, and then let things happen according to those laws, that's fine. Science doesn't comment on the pre Big Bang situation. The post Big Bang scenario is the same no matter how it started. )

But Creationists are locked into their belief. Science is all wrong, in their opinion (belief), and nothing anyone says or does will change that. So there is no sense trying.

If a person thinks evolution is wrong, he or she shouldn't bother commenting on science articles. The rest of the world really isn't interested in what he or she has to say.
UB_Anthro
Y'all dont know what the word 'science' even means. Science literally means from the Greek word, sciens, meaning "a way of knowing". Thats all. Its a loaded word that everyone uses in a eurocentric way. Its just rules you think the universe works by. Atoms or a pantheon of gods can both be science. Go get a degree,
Skeptic
Josh-you mention scientific theory. Whether a theory is scientific or otherwise it is still just that, a theory. The problem is that scientific study can not prove the theory of evolution. The theory of an ancient earth is based on assumptions, not facts that have been proved in the lab. Your faith in evolution is astounding, but it is no more than that. I have yet to find scientific proof for your theory.
Guest_Josh
QUOTE (Guest_Andy+Apr 7 2005, 01:01 PM)
I have to admire your faith, Josh, in the scientific method. Maybe I am not as well read as you are but I am aware of a large number of researchers who have cast serious doubt over the reliability of certain methods of dating (e.g. carbon, potassium-argon). Evolution relies heavily on the idea of an old earth and so evolutionists can't do anything but clutch onto theie dating methods and block out the opposition (sometimes using unfair character attacks on other knowledgeable researchers). You also say we know about human development 4-7 million years ago. Quite how science has got to the point that allows people to believe themselves when making comments like that is beyond me.

I will also point out to you, Andy, that science does not require faith. We can say the earth is old because the evidence points us in that direction. If the light shifts of the universe tell us something is millions of miles away and it is moving outward at a measureable rate, we can theorize that at one point all the matter in the universe had once came from a singularity. If we can measure the sound emitting from a distant star and determine that the pitch is lower than other stars, we can theorize that the object is further away. This is how science works. You may disagree and find some minor refutations to radio-carbon dating but that's ok. Science is still highly reliable because ti accepts change as part of its process. If some new evidence arises, be sure science will have to deal with it. Obviously at this time there is nothing substantial to lead science in a different direction.
Doctor What
Do you reckon they had prostitution back then, hope so as my time machine is soon to be finished
guest_john
The facts are here:
Evolution is a theory (thus Theory of Evolution).
A theory is a set of statements or principles widely accepted and often used to make predictions and form new hypothesis (A hypothesis is an intelligent assumption). The theory of evolution was a hypothesis made by Charles Darwin. Which was rejected and also accepted by many scientist. No, it is not fact, however, it is a very widely accepted explaination for the origin of man.

Creation is a myth. Based on mystic religious text called the bible. Considered a hypothesis and later developed into a theory (mostly by religious zealots). Consider this, on Mt Sinai, when God explained to Moses (yes, Moses wrote most of the Pentateuch not God), the begining of Man and the jewish race, Moses' primitive mind could not have possibly understood the complexities of evolution, the atom, anatomy, DNA, cell structure, fusion reactions, black hole entities so and so forth. If God were to go into detail the answers of the Universe the Bible would not be just 1 book, it would be a whole library, covering the course of billions of years. I guess, God in His infinite wisdom, decided to give Moses the answer he would understand, ie. The earth and Man were created in 7 days.

Sad to say that most people still have the cavemen like intellect and refuse to believe anything but what their parents or teachers (or religious leaders) have told them. They refuse to think for themselves, and refuse to think critically about what they are taught. This is how religious leaders and politicians have controlled populations for all of history.
Guest_Josh
QUOTE (Skeptic+Apr 7 2005, 01:23 PM)
Josh-you mention scientific theory. Whether a theory is scientific or otherwise it is still just that, a theory. The problem is that scientific study can not prove the theory of evolution. The theory of an ancient earth is based on assumptions, not facts that have been proved in the lab. Your faith in evolution is astounding, but it is no more than that. I have yet to find scientific proof for your theory.

Skeptic - I will also point you in the direction of Stephen Gould's article on the explanation of a scientific theory. He's an actual scientist:
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gou...and-theory.html

In short, the term scientific theory is quite different than the lay definition - meaning, a guess. I dare you to tell a real scientist to stop sitting around all day and 'guessing' at how the world really works. Go ahead.
Chris
Faith has no place in science. Creationism, intelligent design, etc., are not science. They aren't even theories since they aren't testable.

Evolutionary theories such as natural selection are observable in this century. The color of insects and other animals that are arboreal has changed in relation to the increasing levels of pollution that have darkened tree bark. As certain places in the world have become more arid, animals with more efficient kidneys are becoming dominant. Natural selection is observable now. Traits that contribute to survival become dominant.

Evolution is no longer considered a set of theories by most scientists. It is considered a set of laws. There are certain aspects of cosmology that are too difficult to know because the evidence is so hard to collect and interpret such as the big bang vs. a local bang or even a continuous universe. However, with respect to evolution no credible scientist doubts its validity.

Anyone who doubts things like fossil evidence or carbon dating didn't understand their high school chemistry.
Troy Large
It is interesting to view the replies every time the press reports another monkey skull to be something of a human. It seems there always shows up a certian group of people who seem to carry the idea that they in fact know best, some of which are some sort of religious nuts and the bulk of which are Darwinist. The rest of the folks, as a rule, seem to have read a little about science and don't seem to live in a way that reflects some sort of stiff closed mindedness that disregards the facts of external reality.

First there is the question of dateing. About the only method we have has to do with radioactive properties. There is a simple algbra equation that governs this particular method of dating, which, as it turns out, anyone can look at for themselves if they choose to. The nature of solving this equaion the way the dating theory ask us to is such that the bulk of high school students who have some grasp on algebra would right away say "hey, you can't do that" upon fisrt being expossed to it. In fact, the only way one can "do it" is if one carries the "assumption" that the only possible way in the universe to create this one particulare form in atomic structure is from this one particulare decay proccess. In fact, more than one of our "good dating methods" has been set aside via discovery that the resulting atomic structure could be made from more than one method. In short, it isn't the best dating system, by a long ways, that we might hope for, but does seem to be, more or less, what we have to work with today. (there are aslo other problems with it. Example: if uranimum turns into lead, it also creates hydrogen in doing so. Our space craft have shown earth collects hydrogen from the sun.....thus, at very least earth should have the hydrogen from the decay of uranium and from what it collects from space (the old idea that hydrogen excapes into space now seems quite in error), but, we just so happen to be missing all this hydrogen.....so, if all the lead came from uranium, where the heck did all the hydrogen go???)

The next thing is this old theory of Darwins, which requires millions and milllions and milllions and millions of years, by the theory itself, to very slowly turn on living thing into some other sort of spiecies. The fossil recoerd, in the day of Dariwn, as Darwin himself clearly stated, does not demonstrate this. Darwin stated that was simply because of fossil recored was so incomplete. Today the matter is much worse in the way that we have found very much more in terms of fossils and the recored does not support these slow changes which Darwins theory needs to be there if correct. Instead the recored itself shows long times when creratures changed almost not at all and then short times when they changed extreamly fast (or better put, simply show up in the recored all the sudden, and or died out all the sudden). The facts of this recored turned some scientist to think that perhaps Darwins theory wasn't actualy correct. One such scientist in recent times got famous for this, his name is Gould. He said, in short, that Darwins evolution doesn't work for really long streches of time, then all the sudden in a very sort time frame, for reasons unknown, Darwins evolution takes place really reaslly fast, then stops again for a really long time. In this way we can still say "see, we still have a great grandparent that was a pre-monkey form and are still a cousin to the monkey". But we can only do this if we take the "idea" and say to ourselves "this idea is in fact a reality of nature", a rather large step given the apparent lack of proof and replicatable experment, not to mention given what has been demonstrated by other branches of study, such as the contributions made by statistics (the odds of an octapus having an eye very simulare to man, via evolution, is not as likely as a moneky at a typwritter typing out, word of word, dawins book about how woman are so completly inferor to men and how the black folks are so worthless compaired to white men, which he submitted as a sort of proof for his theory after reflecting on ther nature of his own theory for ten years (see "the decent of man")), cotrubutions made by micro-biology, etc. Gould himself, in fact, has left us with an artical on why studies such as "Darwins fenches" do not demonstrate proof for Darwins theory at all, but in fact stand against it (the time frame is way to short, the changes can be fully explained by variaty given in the genes to start with, etc.).

In addition, in the department of replicatable experment, so very imortant to science being science and not a field of phiolosophical speculation, Darwinism certianly comes up a little short. If we could set up an experement where a fish tuned into a housefly, or some such thing, and every university on earth could replicate it, then we would have some strong replicatable experement to back theory. The line of reasoning "it takes to long for these changes to happen", does noit remove the fact that we have no such replicatable experemnts. Certianly there are changes in bactirium that some have elevated as being proof, but only at the expence of ignoring all the biologist who say, "no, this demonstrates the nature of genetic code and has zip to do with turning into some complelty diffrent life form", a matter which Gould himself fully seemed to understand and agree with. These facts do not, in themselves make it such that Darwinism is not 'science', however, it does toss it pretty far into the relm of 'unsubstantiated', and when combined with other matters, such as the fossil recoreds nature, leaves Darwins work as pretty likely to be 'incorrect'. The new breads of it such as Gould work, are not, in fact, Darwins theory, especialy in that, as Gould recognizes, they violate Darwins time table. In addition, they also take on this wonder property of "why doesnt evolution work most of the time and then simply happens real fast like, only to turn off again for a really long time???" That is, they sound sort of like a squeeze on an idea so it fits the recored in a way that, quite frankly, leaves something of a huge pill to swallow in our 'faith' in Gould brain power.

With respect to the press we go into psychology and sociology, as well as the field of propaganda. We know well that in the areas of what the human mind knows not, the psychological phenoman of projection can be most active. We know well that, for example, pollitical propaganda takes advantage of this phenomana in a collective way. An example of this would be a propaganda promoter who equated everyone who is a democrate as being the same thing as a homosexual drug taking tree hugging sociolist, regardless of the facts of reality (and, as normal, he turned out to be nothing more than a major leage druggy). From sociology we know the school of matirialism (who recent hight was around 1900) has left a remant in modern society with a particuare charge to it. It is a well known fact if one prints "proof man once was a monkey" that there will follow all this emotionaly charged argument over the nature of if Darwin was or was not God (to use a little propaganda myself for the sake of humor). In a day when the leading news stations work off the idea that news should give emotional rise to the eaters of it, and thus be at least as much 'entertainment as it is actual news', we have a perfect stage for such articals to show up, as opposed to serious articals about the state of such scientifc fierlds today. After all, it gives everyone here a reason to post, be it to show how stupid religous nuts are because they dont go for Darwin, or how closed minded Darwinsit are for ignoring the actual facts, or the inbetween folks who wonder why in the heck anyone would be so dang polerized over such a field, which in the end, we know so very little about.

Guest_Andy
Wow, science does work! I have proven my assumptions. I send a post to this forum and I get the expected replies, I have just successfully carried out a "scientific" experiement in predicting the responses of the closed minded followers of science. My prediction was that a majority of the replies would come down to an argument about my intelligence. Many of the replies I have received include attacks on my intelligence and when it gets to that point I realise there is no point in bothering to have a sensible discussion.

I do not deny that science is important and certainly accept a number of its findings. I also do not deny evolution in some form, it is inevitable that evolution has had a part to play in our origins. I just don't think the current ideas are suitable.

Some of the comments made in this thread are just plain ridiculous. Things like "Faith has no place in science". Of course it does and I don't think I really need to go into detail. Also "If a person thinks evolution is wrong, he or she shouldn't bother commenting on science articles. The rest of the world really isn't interested in what he or she has to say." This is an absurd reaction; completely unreasonable and very unfair. As usual the closed minded scientific community use personal attacks in an attempt to win an argument and prove their point (and this sort of strategy is used by members of the public following their crusade). This is a perfect example as to why I question science and don't just accept everthing it has to say. People with such strong attachments to an idea cannot be fully trusted, they are partly blindfolded by their beliefs. Some people need to start thinking more independently and maybe then the bias can be taken out of the research.

Finally, i'd like to say thank you to Troy Large for being the only person on this thread to have said something truly sensible and not getting involved in anything other than unbiased observation. I admit I have not myself behaved in a truly unbiased fashion so thank you to the one person who tells it like it is.
Earl Benser
Troy Large is a perfect case of unnecessary prattle. He really doesn't have a clue. But, no sense trying to improve his mind - it's in a lock-down mode.
Guest_Andy
Ha ha. Speak for yourself Benser. Lock down mode is a disease of evolutionists. This is just comical now. I can't believe that so many of you closed minded scientists think you are all so clever. It is so sad and pathetic.
AnthroPhD
QUOTE (UB_Anthro+Apr 7 2005, 01:22 PM)
Y'all dont know what the word 'science' even means. Science literally means from the Greek word, sciens, meaning "a way of knowing". Thats all. Its a loaded word that everyone uses in a eurocentric way. Its just rules you think the universe works by.  Atoms or a pantheon of gods can both be science. Go get a degree.

The term "science" is simply a label. The label is neither loaded nor Eurocentric (as demonstrated by the fact that many languages have a word with similar meaning -- explain how the Chinese word for "science" is Eurocentric, please?). The ancient greek meaning of the label is no longer relevant. To argue otherwise is to claim that language cannot change. In this case, it has changed. "Pantheon of gods" no longer counts as science, just as "democracy" no longer refers to males only (as it did in ancient Greece). If you had any education in anthropology, "UB-Anthro", you'd know that, and you'd also know that degrees don't equal knowledge (though I have a degree, several in fact).
P.S. Hey creationists -- go wrestle with the boatloads of evidence at www.talkorigins.org. Your points (such as they are) are specifically dealt with there.
Guest_Andy
Whoops, I have been so stupid. If only I had visited www.talkorigins.org before then I wouldn't have to doubt anything any more. It answers all my questions. Evolution must be true because it says it on the website. I will tell all my friends. I apologise for wasting everyone's time. How silly of me and very embarrassing. Evolution has been proved underneath my nose and I never even realised it. Hooray for closed minded science, it has been right all along.
Vicente Harrison
Greetings,

The debate goes on is correct! If this were a court of law and the proof of this theory was the sole factor upon a conviction then they would be a free man leaving the court house. Scientist now a days are over rated and more often then not wrong about everything. With all the fancy, dancy equipment they can give us no more information then the true scientist back in the day who had little to work with. Now we have scientist being paid off by organizations who have underline objectives and hidden agendas. Let me wrap this up in a simple fashion, "Let us here the conclusion of the whole matter, Fear God keep his commandments for this is the whole duty of man. For God shall bring every work into judgement, every secret thing whether it be good or evil...........think on these things!

Peace Be Unto You,
vh
Guest_Mike
Over the last 6 years or so, I have really starting to understand the meaning of "Blind Faith".

Scentists could discover the missing link still preserved in a block of ice and it still wouldn't be enough for those "Blinded by the Lord"

It's so apparent at how threatened the Religious Right are by science, they are so worried that some scientist will find proof that disproves their belief system. All those Sunday's wasted could have been spent watching NASCAR.

It doesn't help that we have a President who consults God about the ups and dows of invading Iraq, what to do about North Korea and Social Security.

What these Western Religious Fanatics, the same people that laugh at Muslims fighting agains technology and western lifestyle (for the same exact reasons/fears) don't understand is that "God" created a world where something like "Evolution" is possible. God created a system more complex than a man, a woman, and an apple.

Wake up and smell the coffee

Guest_Mike

cc
A question: What about other religions and their timelines? Each belief system has their own way of explaining how they came to be, so they can justify their existence. Without science where would we be? We surely would not be responding to comments in this forum.
Guest_Steve
Can someone tell me exactly how this 7 million year date was determined? Was it by the carbon dating method? Was it by other objects found in the vacinity that had been proven (by what method) to be 7 million years old? Was it by the rock strata that the skull was found in? I have yet to read how the age was just determined on a two-year-old find.

Which raises a few questions for any thinking person: Why 7 million years? Why not 6.5 million? or 7.3 million? Or do a few hundered thousand years not matter - just round it off to the neaest million.

And what about the previous skull that was thought to be 5 miilion years old? Is it still 5 million y.o.? Or is that dating being rethought? (Was 7 million chosen for the new skull just to discredit a competitor's find?)

If a tree falls in the forrest and no one is there to hear it, does it make a sound? If a person lived 7 million years ago, but no one was there to see it, how do we really know?

Since science is indeed objective and proven by replication in the lab, I guess I will wait for someone to tell me how they are going to replicate this.

Then we have the question of all of the missing parts and pieces. If indeed humans were here for seven million years, shouldn't there be gazillions of similarly ancient skulls - plus twice as many in obvious transitional states? Where are they? One from 7 million years ago and another from 5 million years ago. The evidence is somewhat lacking, wouldn't you say?

Talk about blind faith.
GuestAAA
To GuestAndy:

Evolution must be wrong because the bible says so!

On one hand, there are thousands of biologists, physiscists, chemists who have spend thousands of man hours in the field and in labs, dedicating their entire lives to research.

On the other hand we have a bunch of bigots who do nothing but read ONE book and expext all answers to be there.

What proof do you have that its *only* the bible thats correct and NOT hindus, buddhists, mayans, egyptions, eskimos ? After all, it could be that the hindus are correct and YOU are on the wrong path. The hindus read their books and believe in them as fervently as you do. Why is your belief True and their beliefs wrong ?

There can be only ONE truth. You need to consider the possiblity that the odds are totally against YOUR version of truth to be correct.

Then you need to consider that thousands of scientists, researchers, students etc who have studied evoulution, could be just a little smarter that you are, atleast collectively.
grape ape
Quit monkeying around you guys....or should I say ape-men. You may like to think that your grandfather was an ape but I would prefer not to. This amounts to nothing but gorrilla warfare.
synergymus
I didn't read all of the post so forgive if this point has been mentioned. Creationism and Evolution are mutually exclusive theories. Creationism tells about how the world began. Evolution has nothing to say about that. Evolution is about how living organisms CHANGE. To say something evolved is synonymous with saying it changed. There are 100,000's of scientists that understand this. Many of them are Christians. If you are creationist and you can't understand this then you are mixing apples and oranges.

Please allow me to Flame:
For all of you that have a such a big problem with science, then stop using your cars, your plastic, your heating oil, your farm equipment, etc. etc. etc. that SCIENCE has provided for you. God may have given us the tools (i.e. this planet) but Man has made those things through science

Tcheukraki
I don't profess to agree with either Evolutionism or Darwinism. I don't have enough evidence or facts yet. I then must have faith that one or the other is true (fully, partially or not at all.) I will keep an open mind and keep studying until I am comfortable. At the moment, evolution, in my opinion has more convincing evidence.

Here's a thought, though: Can God, who is all powerful, create a species with the ability to evolve? If so, then the difference in the two theories is a matter of dates.
Tcheukraki
cont...

Sorry, I meant to to say I don't yet fully agree with either Evolutionism or Creationism...
ralph
Let's see. Scientists and their theories - all pure hokum. Maxwell and his "electromagnetic" equations - just crap, because there's obviously no light, no electricity. no magnets, no radio, no tv, no washing machines, no movies, no pc's, no ..... Copernicus and his "sun centered" system of planets - absolute bunk, because the religious right of that time knew where the earth stood, at the self-centered center of the universe, right where god stuck it up. Darwin - well, we know all about that theory. We ain't related to no monkeys, boy. 'Cause we got reallll big brains, an' we know stuff, see, even if we ain't read no goddam books, 'cause it's self-evident, right. Say it ain't, an' me an' my buddies'll stick you to a stake and let you rot. Christ.
Guest
QUOTE (Vicente Harrison+Apr 7 2005, 04:38 PM)
Greetings,

......Let me wrap this up in a simple fashion, "Let us here the conclusion of the whole matter, Fear God keep his commandments for this is the whole duty of man. For God shall bring every work into judgement, every secret thing whether it be good or evil...........think on these things!

Peace Be Unto You,
vh

Which god? Which commandments? What is good? What is evil? Who sets the rules? Where is the proof to support these claims? Real proof, that is, not just wishful thinking...

Troy Large
As always in the hot Darwin talk, I see some cofusion about the term "evolution" may well be at hand. As a matter of historical fact, neartly every text book in biology for a great many years defined evolution as, in part, being 'according to Darwinism' (that is, for it to be evolution it had to fit Darwins theory). This defintion was forced to be changed from the empirical facts. The new defintion that is found most often in our up-to-date biology text books no longer required the Darwin part in the term 'evolution', but in fact they give a defintion for that term which very simply means 'things change'...............in this way, evolution is 'true' because all evedance points to the fact that 'things' do in fact change (as such, quite frankly, the defintion isn't not really worth much, other than, of course, in its use of talking out both sides of ones mouth at the same time....that is, prenteding evolution is attached to Darwin while makeing use of the modern defintion for the term).

More important than such social manipulation matters, is the matter of "science" itself, of which there also seems to be some misunderstandings from those, at very least, who have a taste for polerization (strong Darwinist and their 'only God' friends, so common to these type web pages). I strongly recommend anyone who has interest in this area to read Max Weber's "science as a vocation", which probably is avalable on the web. The history of science has a very clear tract recored as follows "every theory put forward ends up being altered" The is no reason whatsoever to believe this is any difrent today (example, it seems very clear that quantum physics and relativity do not match up, thus the strong beliefe that we really dont have a full picture of a few things here....if, that is, a full picture is even possable: note Kurt Godel's proofs on the incompletness of logic systems). In addition, it also has this track recored "science has altered, very greatly, the facer of human culture via its contributions". Also, and this is very important, at the end of the very hight of matiralism (around 1900) it started to be clearly shown than many of the worst errors from science came out of believing in science and alpying it outside of it relm of its demonstatable validity. This last point was one of the great discoverys of modern time, and one which today, all to often, the public at large, as well as many with degrees in science, all to often forget. By asll means, if you have it in you to do so, read Weber's work listed above.


Guest_Tom
QUOTE

The headline "Toumai is indeed oldest known hominid" suggests that we have just been given indisputable proof of a major "missing link" that the theory of evolution has been relying on for years. Is there proof or is this just another classic case of religious like brainwashing from the evolutionary community?


I love this stuff. It is indicative of those who fail to see the difference between "belief" and "theory."

You can not "believe" in "evolution" because evolution is not a faith-based initiative. Creationism is a "belief" because there is nothing behind it (in terms of evidence, theory or logic) to support it.

I also dearly love the "reading in" of the headline. That it somehow "suggests that we have just been given indisputable proof of a major "missing link""

Sure. Whatever you say. I didn't read it that way. I read it as "thus far, evidence suggests that this is the oldest evidence of a being in the human line." I didn't see 'indisputible proof" nor did I infer "missing link" ... this is so typical of people who just jump off the blind-ass cliff of belief and think their reading of something is true.

Sounds like fundamentalism ......
Guest
QUOTE (Guest+Apr 8 2005, 12:11 AM)
QUOTE (Vicente Harrison+Apr 7 2005, 04:38 PM)
Greetings,

......Let me wrap this up in a simple fashion, "Let us here the conclusion of the whole matter, Fear God keep his commandments for this is the whole duty of man.  For God shall bring every work into judgement, every secret thing whether it be good or evil...........think on these things!

Peace Be Unto You,
vh

Which god? Which commandments? What is good? What is evil? Who sets the rules? Where is the proof to support these claims? Real proof, that is, not just wishful thinking...


QUOTE

......Let me wrap this up in a simple fashion, "Let us here the conclusion of the whole matter, Fear God keep his commandments for this is the whole duty of man. For God shall bring every work into judgement, every secret thing whether it be good or evil...........think on these things!



Here's the thing. If God is so smart, don't you think he can write better than that? Certainly better than Michael Crichton, I would think. Sheeeesh!!

QUOTE (->
QUOTE

......Let me wrap this up in a simple fashion, "Let us here the conclusion of the whole matter, Fear God keep his commandments for this is the whole duty of man. For God shall bring every work into judgement, every secret thing whether it be good or evil...........think on these things!



Here's the thing. If God is so smart, don't you think he can write better than that? Certainly better than Michael Crichton, I would think. Sheeeesh!!


Peace Be Unto You,


Praise be to Allah the merciful!
Bright
All this commentary, and not one serious scientist's remarks.

Tolerance is dead.

Bright
Guest_Andy
I think I may have been slightly misunderstood. I am not a hardcore religion follower but cannot help but see flaws in the scientific method. I believe totally in "microevolution" but have serious doubts about the validity of "macroevolution". I can see how species change but don't buy in to the idea that new species can be created via the means of genetic mutation or other unknown processes. I think it very worrying that microevolution and macroevolution fall under one heading "Evolution" because they are two entirely separate disciplines. One of them is repeatably observable, leading to confidence in its validity, the other is based on the faith that what we currently understand of genetics and the like is wrong. All I ask is that science and the media cover both sides of the story and don't continue to push the idea that macroevolution is any more than just a stretched theory (that has opposition not just from outside of science). As long as darwinists believe in macroevolution as proved then we cannot get unbiased research (the pieces of evidence will be fiddled so to prove them right even though the evidence may point in another directions). One thing I don't understand is that so many people seem to be inclined to think that anything that science fails to recognise as possible must be baloney. If we carry on down this road we will probably end up making fewer and fewer discoveries because the blindfold will be getting tighter all along the way.
Guest
Maco-evolution is just micro-evolution over a longer time period. The basic process is the same in either case.
Guest_Andy
That is far too simplistic. Macroevolution (if by macroevolution we mean vast genetic mutations causing one species to change into a completely new species) is not observable. No-one has witnessed this theoretical phenomena. Macroevolution relies on gradual changes and the fossil record simply doesn't match up. Microevolution is an observable phenomena and hence I do not argue with this. I only argue against macroevolution because I don't think there is enough evidence. I am bored of this discussion now anyway. I am just trying to argue from the point of view of someone with an open mind. I am glad that I don't have the sort of closed mind that refuses to look at the world in any way other than from an entirely materialistic point of view. Materialism is becoming too much an ideology rather than proper science.
Troy Large
Like stated above, evolution is indeed a fact of nature "as defined in modern times" (the last part, 'as defined in modern times" being the key to the matter). In modern times the biological community defines evolution to mean, basicly, that things change. It does not mean that one spiecies turns into another, nor does it mean that anything in the Darwinistic theory is correct or incorrect, it simply means things change. In fact, because of the defintion we could just as easy attach the term "change" to it, tossing out the term "evolution" and thereby arrive at a defintion of a term that isn't anywhere as close to being missunderstood as the use of the word 'evolution' enjoys. It enjoys this misunderstanding because for many decades the term 'evolution' had the words 'according to Darwins theory' incorparated in the defintion of the term.......a matter which the biologist where forced into changing due to actual scientific findings of modern times.

To see a simular example, take the term 'liberal'. By the dictionary, in pollitical use, its meaning has long been "one who believes in democratic forms of government as opposed to totaltarian or monarcy forms of government". Then entered Limbagh and company who changed the term 'liberal' to mean "amoral pinko commie homosexual tree hugging sociolist", which of course has nothing whatsoever to do with the normal meaning people have long sense understood the term 'liberal' to mean. The same thing is so of the term 'evolution', only in the latter case the term is used via modern defintion when it is said "evolution is a fact of nature", for indeed 'change' is a property of many things, but the association of the old defintion is often hoped to be understood in the statment 'according to Darweins theory'. The former term, liberal, is used in the opposite fasion. There, anyone who uses the term in its long understood pollitical meaning, such as a human who states "I am liberal", meaning "I am for democratic forms of government and not totalitarian forms", is presently hoped to be equated with the new meaning for the term......that is, the hope is, when they say such a thing, people will right away think "oh, that person is an amoral pinko commie homosexual tree hugging sociolist".

The point is this: if you find yourself arguing as to if evolution is true or not, then the first thing you should do is ask for a very exact defintion of that term via a text book on biology and then see if your useing a 1960's or 1970's text book, or a modern text book. Example: if useing an old text book defintion, then 'microevolution', meaning things change according to darwins theory, is not a matter proven true. Furthermore, 'macroevolution' is not proven true either. However, if useing a modern text book, then 'mocroevolution, meaning things change in the small at times, is indeed true. Furthermore, 'macroevolution', meaning things change over a long pirod of time, also has many examples of truth to it as well.......but do not be confussed that this has anything at all, via the defintion, to imply anything whatsoever about Darwins work. Of course all this would be very simple if we simply left 'evolution' to mean 'according to Darwins theory, and used the word 'change' to mean that some things do change. The, when people posted "that some things change is a proven fact, pretty much everyone would agree, and when we said, 'evolution has been proven true (meaning 'according to Darweins theory'), most would turn their heads and smile walking away thinking "gee, yet another Darwin Fundmentalist radical crackpot", and leave them to their lofty arguments with the "god is only as I see him" folks. However, that is not our case, as yet once again this web page so clearly shows.
PhantomLemur
LISTEN UP PEOPLE!

You have taken an interesting topic and defiled it with your bickering! Is it too much to ask that we don't turn every discussion about science into a religious debate? It started out so promising. Were the computer models a good indicator? where did fit in to our family tree? But predictably, we had to start a shouting match over how big our God's dick was. I don't mean this to offend you, but honestly, I think we can do better.

so here's a website with a nice picture of what we could be talking about.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/toumai.html

Plus, and I'm serious about this, CHECK YOUR SPELLING PLEASE! I know there's no spell check on this site but if you don't do it somehow I just end up ignoring you.

PhantomLemur
wink.gif Sorry that should have said, "Where did it fit into our family tree?"

Feel free to call me an idiot to your friends.
Guest_Andy
Thanks for your input. I am going to have a look at the link you suggest. I would add that I never mentioned anything about religion in my initial posts, I just said that I was not convinced about the whole story of evolution given the current evidence. There were a number of people making the assumption that I was a "religious crackpot" when I never actually said that. Is it not possible to question evolution without being called a crackpot? I am just someone who wants to make sure that the public get an unbiased view of science. I do sometimes feel that scientific journals favour a materialist viewpoint without question and this could be unfair not only on the public but also on the abundance of scientific researchers finding validity in a whole range of other disciplines. The journals report what they want and that is fine but it doesn't necessarily follow that materialism is always right, that really is my main argument.
synergymus
QUOTE (Guest_Andy+Apr 8 2005, 01:21 PM)
That is far too simplistic. Macroevolution (if by macroevolution we mean vast genetic mutations causing one species to change into a completely new species) is not observable.

Guest_Andy,

You have to define species...there are many things that go into defining whether or not two living creatures are different species. (What biologist consider different species may not correspond to what you think) By many of those definitions the idea that microevolution of time could yield a creature which could no longer by classified as the same species it was 100,000 years ago is entirely plausible. But difficult to test (as you have mentioned) however the evidece that supports common origin is substantial (chromosomal DNA, mitochondrial DNA, Protein Structure, comparative anatomy, and the fossil record) The idea of evolution does not rest on one body of evidence but a whole host of evidence that continues to support it. In fact if you can point towards evidence that doesn't support I would be extremely interested.
synergymus
Speaking of being open-minded has anyone considered the possibility that God created a world which was dynamic in all ways, and that it is his intention that ideas, molecular systems, life, and all forms of matter evolve in time. Even systems that seem to be static are dynamic and exhibit fluctuations. (Whether or not you see these fluctuations depends on how much course graining is done.)

The theory of evolution is extremely course grained. It only describes the average behavior at certain time scales, which is change. It doesn’t describe fluctuations at anytime scale. What I mean is that some time scales (larger and smaller than described by evolution) things look constant with small fluctuations. This is true for all systems I am aware of.
Billy
www.sosparty.com
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.