Scientists find 'oldest human ancestor'

BBC.com ^ | January 30, 2017 | Pallab Ghosh

[BroJoeK]

"Beginning in about 6 months, truth is going to begin pouring out at a phenomenal rate, and all these hucksters will begin to wet their pants."

For nearly 100 years now, US law has sided with science and against you deniers.
You are, of course, allowed to teach whatever you wish in your own places, but in public schools you cannot teach your religious beliefs in the name of science.

By US law, scientists, not anti-scientists, decide what is or is not science in public schools.

[mewzilla]

“Oh, no! Not again!”

[bert]

Think Burgess Shale

Think Wonderful Life by Stephen J Gould writing about the scientists studying the Burgess Shale fossils.

[bert]

It’s ok to be ignorant. Posting ignorance is however not good

[caver]

It still doesn’t make it believable.

[bert]

See post 43 and read the book

also, visit the Royal Tyrell Museum in Alberta and you can see the real Burgess Shale fossils.

Belief has nothing to do with it. There is actual reality.

[BroJoeK]

stocksthatgoup: "I think the claim is fictional"

editor-surveyor: "Way beyond mere fiction."

Yes, popular science writing can be surprisingly unscientific, and this article is an example.
But nobody would care in the least about an ugly little critter from hundreds of millions of years ago, unless, unless, it's said to be a "first human ancestor", now we have some interest.
Click bait is the term, I think.

In fact, it could be a human ancestor, that case can be made based on its similarities and differences with other fossils.
And if it is, that's pretty interesting.
But it just as well might not be, so actual ancestors of vertebrates from that time period are yet to be found.

Regardless, it's good work and an interesting hypothesis.
You, of course, don't have to "believe" it, since no real scientist does.
Hypotheses do not require "belief".

[bert]

If you have an interest, see post 43. Unless you are totally ignorant and terminally biased, Gould’s book will give you tons of facts that were developed from the hands on fossil record by the cream of the crop.

Most won’t read it because they fear being struck by lightening or worse, talked about at church.

[BroJoeK]

bert: "If you have an interest, see post 43.
Unless you are totally ignorant and terminally biased..."

Thanks, I read Gould's book years ago, though I think it got lost in my last move.

Science is all about facts & theories to explain them.
Rules for theories include: they must be based on facts, they must explain the facts and they must be verifiable, or "falsifiable" is the term.
But first and foremost, they must be natural explanations.

Our science-denier FRiends here wish us to understand that science "so-called" is all about myths, religion and pseudo-science.
Science "so called" is just another religion, they say, and therefore their religious claims should take precedence.

Of course, that's far from true, but it's where the real arguments here take place.

Thanks for your posts!

[VaeVictis]

So that was us 550 million years ago? That is alot of upward evolution then.... hmmm. What about other animals?

Crocodile 100m years ago

A Horseshoe crab 450m Years Ago

A Jelly fish 500m Years Ago

Where is the upward evolution? We went from a micro-blob to human while numerous species just stopped evolving for 500m years?

[generally]

I probably shouldn’t laugh, but I did.

[BroJoeK]

VaeVictis: "Where is the upward evolution?
We went from a micro-blob to human while numerous species just stopped evolving for 500m years?"

Which illustrates one tenant of evolution theory: evolution won't fix what ain't broken.
The basic crocodile body-plan has worked well all these years, while many others went extinct.

But it's wrong to suggest there's been no crocodile evolution, as the fossil record clearly shows many varieties on the theme:

Crocodile evolution from Jurassic (200 mya) on:

"Here is a list of the most notable crocodiles and phytosaurs, living and extinct:

• Aegisuchus Better known as the "ShieldCroc."
• Allodaposuchus This "eusuchian" prowled the rivers of southern Europe.
• Anatosuchus Otherwise known as the "DuckCroc."
• Angistorhinus A crocodile-like phytosaur of the late Triassic period.
• Araripesuchus This long-legged crocodile hunted its prey on land.
• Armadillosuchus Otherwise known as the "armadillo crocodile."
• Baurusuchus A land-dwelling crocodile of Cretaceous South America.
• Bernissartia One of the smallest of all the Cretaceous crocodiles.
• Carnufex Its name is Greek for "butcher."
• Champsosaurus A crocodile-like reptile of the late Cretaceous period.
• Chimaerasuchus The first vegetarian crocodile ever to be discovered.
• Culebrasuchus This crocodile sheds light on the geography of the Americas.
• Dakosaurus This fierce marine crocodile had a dinosaur-like head.
• Deinosuchus One of the biggest crocodiles of the Cretaceous period.
• Desmatosuchus A crocodile-like archosaur with a fish-like head.
• Dibothrosuchus A dog-like sphenosuchian of early Jurassic Asia.
• Diplocynodon A prehistoric alligator of western Europe.
• Doswellia This may (or may not) have been one of the earliest crocodiles.
• Erpetosuchus This tiny reptile may have been the ancestor of all crocodiles.
• Geosaurus This aquatic reptile may have spent its entire life in the sea.
• Goniopholis A widespread crocodile of the late Jurassic period.
• Gracilisuchus One of the most dinosaur-like of all the Triassic crocodiles.
• Guarinisuchus This marine crocodile thrived after the mosasaurs went extinct.
• Kaprosuchus This "BoarCroc" had some very big teeth.
• Mesosuchus This "middle crocodile" was a confirmed vegetarian.
• Metriorhynchus One of the most common crocodiles of the Jurassic period.
• Mystriosuchus This Triassic archosaur looked a lot like a modern gharial.
• Neptunidraco "Neptune's dragon" is the earliest identified metriorhynchid.
• Notosuchus Did this ancient crocodile have a pig-like snout?
• Pakasuchus This tiny crocodile had distinctly mammalian teeth.
• Pholidosaurus This proto-crocodile is a taxonomic nightmare.
• Pristichampsus A hooved crocodile of the Eocene epoch.
• Protosuchus This land crocodile competed for prey with early dinosaurs.
• Purussaurus A giant caiman of the Miocene epoch.
• Quinkana A terrestrial crocodile from Down Under.
• Rhamphosuchus Once thought to be the biggest crocodile that ever lived.
• Rutiodon This crocodilian's nostrils were located on top of its head.
• Saltoposuchus This "leaping crocodile" spent most of its time on two legs.
• Sarcosuchus A Cretaceous "SuperCroc" that put modern crocodiles to shame.
• Simosuchus This ancient crocodile had an unusually short skull.
• Stagonolepis This crocodile-like archosaur was actually a vegetarian.
• Steneosaurus An ocean-going crocodile of the Mesozoic Era.
• Stomatosuchus This giant crocodile fed on tiny plankton, like a baleen whale.
• Terrestrisuchus Otherwise known as "the greyhound of the Triassic."
• Theriosuchus This "beast crocodile" straddled the Jurassic and Cretaceous periods.
• Tyrannoneustes This "tyrant swimmer" cut a very crocodilian profile.
• Xilousuchus One of the earliest archosaurs in the fossil record."

My point: evolution has provided many different forms of crocodiles, though never an ability to escape it's basic ground-hugging water-living shape.
Other early life forms did go on to much greater varieties.

[editor-surveyor]

.
>> “Science is all about facts & theories to explain them.” <<

And that is why this article, and “evolution” in general have no relation to science.

Humans have no ancestors that were not also humans.

That was made plain to all that actually read, in the principle of the “kinsman redeemer.”

Of course unbelievers will not accept this.

That is for Yehova to deal with.
.

[BroJoeK]

editor-surveyor: "Humans have no ancestors that were not also humans.
That was made plain to all that actually read, in the principle of the 'kinsman redeemer.' "

So you make a Biblical argument against science?
Nothing wrong with that, you're free to believe what you wish on the subject, so long as you don't call your religious beliefs "science".
By definition, they are not.

Science, by definition, is natural explanations for natural processes -- anything else falls outside the realm of science, and that would include your Bible based beliefs.

But I would argue the Bible is not at war against science, it merely insists on three axioms:

1. God created everything science investigates and He authored every natural law science discovers.
   
2. God rules over everything science discovers or proposes, regardless of whether any particular hypothesis later proves confirmed or falsified.
   
3. On occasion, God over-rules the laws of nature, but never for God's benefit, only for ours (i.e., miracles).

As for "kinsman redeemer" the Bible only tells us that God began with dirt and ended by breathing life into Adam, making him a living soul.
In my opinion, that's also what evolution tells us: dirt to pre-human, the Breath of Life from God making the first man, for the first time, truly human.

Of course, you don't have to believe that, but I still argue the Bible is not at war against science.

[VaeVictis]

I hope that you understand this is not proof of a change. You’ve simply shown that the crocodile species has many different members of its family and many have died out. There is no verifiable proof that a phytosaur ever became something else. This is based on similar traits, a perceived time frame of our geological data, and the assumption that evolution can do that.

But hey, it certainly is enough evidence for many people in the world to believe. I just don’t have that kind of faith to believe in evolution. I believe in God, in Jesus - and what He states in the Bible is radically different than all of my college professors personal’s faith.

[Carthego delenda est]

“Where have I seen that mouth before?”

“The researchers were unable to find any evidence that the animal had an anus, which suggests that it consumed food and excreted from the same orifice.”

I think they’ve got it backwards, the animal is missing a mouth. Your photo proves that point!

[editor-surveyor]

.
The word of Yehova is sound, whereas the current fad that gets called “science” is so far always a joke.

There has yet to be a theory that survives reality.
.

[editor-surveyor]

.
Hey, go easy on BroJoeK.

He likes to talk about ‘science,’ but he has no understanding of what he peddles.
.

[editor-surveyor]

.
1000 years from now, when “the Earth and Heavens have departed for there is no place found for them” science will have evaporated with every other creation of men, but the Bride of Yeshua will still be alive.

I know that’s not for you, but it is something to think about.
.

[BroJoeK]

VaeVictis: "There is no verifiable proof that a phytosaur ever became something else."

Geological & fossil records show many species coming and going over many millions of years -- species preceded by similar but more primitive forms, followed by similar but more complex forms.
Theory says: that's evolution in action, and there's no other natural explanation which makes any sense.
Of course, you may reject the natural explanation in favor of a Bible-based explanation, and that's fine, so long as you don't call your religious beliefs "science".

VaeVictis: "But hey, it certainly is enough evidence for many people in the world to believe.
I just don’t have that kind of faith to believe in evolution. "

As I've pointed out before, there is no "belief" or "faith" in science, since science is just a model.
The analogy I like is the USS Constitution ship model.

Isn't that a beautiful model?
You could even measure and verify it's details are to scale.
But, regardless of how beautiful or accurate a model is, it's still just a model, never the real thing, and always subject to modifications & improvements when certain elements prove inaccurate.
Nobody "believes" in a model or has "faith" in it, because it's just a model. And so with science -- perhaps beautiful and somewhat accurate, but still just a model, never a matter of "belief" or "faith".