Skip to comments.Where did we come from? Prehistoric fossils may rewrite human evolution (LOL!)
Posted on 04/14/2013 9:54:40 AM PDT by GodAndCountryFirst
A collection of prehuman skeletons has sparked intrigue and debate in the scientific community, eliciting calls to redraw or at least reconsider mankind's evolutionary map.
On Friday, an international team of researchers will publish their latest findings on Australopithecus sediba a uniquely puzzling prehuman species that lived nearly 2 million years ago. Led by Lee Berger, a paleoanthropologist at the University of the Witwatersrand in Johannesburg, South Africa, the research reveals new insights about the way Au. sediba walked, chewed, and moved, lending support to Berger's claim that the species is a direct human ancestor.
Experts have long identified Homo habilis as the most likely ancestor to Homo erectus the precursor to modern man but Bergers research points to an alternate lineage. Au. sediba predated Homo habilis by nearly 100,000 years, according to some estimates, and its "mosaic" blend of ape and human qualities suggests a different evolution from human ancestors (known as hominins) to our own Homo genus.
(Excerpt) Read more at theverge.com ...
Just read Dr. Berlinksi’s book: “The Devil’s Delusion: Atheism and Scientific Pretensions”. The witty mathematician tears apart the “thinking” of the evolutionary Marxists who are irrational.
Dad said he traded a three-legged cat for me.
I bet that existed back then, liberal cavemen who sat around all day and refused to hunt then complained: “Gorg have more deer meat than me” and the tribal elder “ Bargack Obomo” who took the deer meat from Gorg and redistributed it.
That’s the nature of science. When you get more information, you have to integrate it and recalculate. Religion doesn’t allow any new information, so there’s never any question of reconsidering your conclusions.
I'll add this:
"Without a doubt, the ultimate Black Swan is whatever it was that permitted merely genetic human beings to emerge into full humanness just yesterday (cosmically speaking), some 50,000 years ago. .....
"....once man consciously enters the sensorium of time and space, he is implicitly aware of both Absolute and Infinite, and therefore Love, Truth, Justice, Beauty, Virtue, and Eternity. These are the things that define man, not his genome. ....."
A religion that cannot encompass science is not worthy the name, while a science that cannot be reconciled with religion is not fit for human beings.
Obomo would not have been successful taking it himself. They would have kicked the crap out of him. No. Obomo somehow persuades the women and masses of inferior men to gang up and steal the deer meat. Then it is redistributed. The stronger men are outnumbered and leave the clan and migrate out of Africa. They go on to form mighty tribes that eventually grow into major countries. They leave behind the Obomo clan in Africa that continues to grow soft and is decimated within a year.
I started the creationist threads here
and I find it hilarious
ANOTHER rewriting of science to fit a theory, instead of their theory fitting the science
IN THE BEGINNING, GOD...
Science should not hold fast to one theory and then just twist all "new information" so that the same tired old theory "still works".
Religion doesn't allow new information? How about miracles? How about healing through prayer? From a religious standpoint, such events are new information which confirm how the world is supposed to work. But a materialist will cross their arms, shake their head, and say "That new information is bogus. The world doesn't work that way. It doesn't. It doesn't. It doesn't."
From where I sit, what you just posted is pure projection: Religion takes new information and gets stronger, while science never reconsiders its conclusion, it just manipulates data so that the new inputs don't threaten the agreed upon position.
Abstracting information from their environment is what made Adam and Eve the first humans.
In other words, if your pre-existing belief is that everything is God's will, then of course everything that happens is covered. So there is no new information.
I disagree. Judaism and most branches of Christianity have incorporated information form science quite well, if however laboriously.
The Vatican Observatory houses one of the best meteorite collections in the world. And many notable scientists have been and are believers.
Personally, I know of no instance where Torah at least, is not comportable with science.
If my belief system were that, so long as I pray for someone, then that person will never, ever die .. then I guess you would have a point. There would be a lot of tremendously old people walking around. But there aren’t. The fact that, in the end, everyone does die, does not in any way provide “evidence against God”.
And no “miracles” for amputees to grow back appendages.
Science is the best hope for limb regeneration. No amount of praying has seen anyone grow back an arm. Their god hates amputees, huh?
Exactly. There is nothing you would accept as "evidence against God," which is what I mean when I say that no new information is ever incorporated. The standing belief that everything is God's will means nothing is ever new. That's why religion and science have two different names. The latter must account for new information. For the former, there is no such thing.
I didn’t say that religion and science were mutually exclusive, I said they were different.
Yes, exactly. That’s why the OP’s remarks are invalid: he’s suggesting that science fails because it doesn’t operate like religion. I’m saying they are two different things.
Just read Dr. Berlinksis book: The Devils Delusion: Atheism and Scientific Pretensions. The witty mathematician tears apart the thinking of the evolutionary Marxists who are irrational.
I love that book.
It’s not so much an attack on evolution as it is an attack on how secular scientists are changing the rules of science to fit their secularism.
Not another rewrite!!!?? The ink isn’t dry on the last rewrite of a rewrite of a.......
Wait, are you saying that you got the Skeletons of Michael Moore, Helen Thomas, Robert Byrd and other LIBERALS??
How did you remove the skeletons from the live people??
Science and the scientific method operate under very strict rules. This is, of course a necessary construct in order to advance the understanding of virtually everything.
The scientific method is bound to “materialism, reductionism etc”, it is bound to what can be observed, tested and repeated”. The interpretations of those discoveries have implications and should fit within the construct of the whole of a particular theory. When the interpretations upset the whole or current narrative of the theory, something needs to give.
Creationists point out the inconsistencies and repeated re-interpretations as a failure of the theory. And evolutionists will tell you that this is how science works.
Objectively, there’s something wrong.
New evidence should support the theory, not make it more complicated. So much more complicated that they are willing to invoke the “super-natural” or “meta-physics” in order to resolve or save the theory.
Some very good friends of mine were driving across a CO mountain pass in winter that has a very dangerous stretch with lots of avalanches. Usually lose at least one car a year, and nobody has ever survived being swept off the road into the canyon.
They stopped and prayed before driving across the stretch. An avalanche hit and swept them off the road. They survived and eventually climbed out.
They believed their survival was a miracle provided by God in response to their prayers.
I pointed out that if they hadn’t stopped to pray, they would have been past the dangerous stretch before the avalanche hit.
My comment was not appreciated.
LOL. That reminds me of the story about the construction worker who falls several stories from a scaffold. He breaks most of the bones in his body, but miraculously lives. He wakes up in traction in the hospitial, and the doctor tells him, “You’re a lucky man”.
He says, “I don’t feel lucky”.
Basically, the Leftists are lying-—their premises are all “assumptions” but they treat it as “truth” which it is not-—just a “theory”.
At. Least Christians admit when they use “faith”.
He does tear apart a lot of the “myth” of evolution.
Berlinski, is not to be played with.
“How many physiological changes are necessary to move a “cow like” animal to a whale ?”
What’s the number?
50, maybe 100,000 changes ?
Let’s weigh that against randomness and generational populations.
The math does not work.
Well if you are a christian you know where you came from.
I read an interesting story once.
Some whalers went ashore and stayed with a group of Inuit (Eskimos) up North way back in the 1860s.
One day, Sarquaq, who was the best hunter and nominal village leader, killed a walrus.
As he began handing out portions to his neighbors, the whalers commented, using an interpreter, that Sarquaq was a very kind and generous man.
When it was translated, he laughed heartily and said, “You do not understand. By whips, one makes dogs, and by GIFTS, one makes slaves.”
Sarquaq saw his distribution of meat as a means to keep himself in a position of power and influence, not as charity.
Some things don’t change.
Omg! Science is based upon evidence and can change in light of new evidence! Obviously an inferior system to never changing what you think no matter how much evidence accumulates!
Some things dont change.
Well, except that the meat belonged to Sarquaq. Today's power and influence comes from redistributing what is OURS!
Their age dating math leaves a lot to be explained as well.
101 Evidences for a Young Age of the Earth...And the Universe
For me Einstein [ a real scientist ] trumps Darwin [ not really any advanced degrees in scientific thought nor original ideas ] every which way. See gravitational time dilation for another perspective regarding how old starlight may not actually be that old.
Or better yet read the book ‘Starlight and Time’ by Russell Humphreys.