Posted on 04/11/2010 1:38:48 PM PDT by valkyry1
Identified via two-million-year-old fossils, a new human ancestor dubbed Australopithecus sediba may be the "key transitional species" between the apelike australopithecines—and the first Homo, or human, species, according to a new study.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.nationalgeographic.com ...
Do you think that using selective breeding I could not make a different type of fish “fly”?
It is hardly a major adaptation. One might have a rougher time turning a wolf into a herding dog, a hunting dog, a retrieving dog or a guard dog; or all of the above - and humans did that in short order.
It is hard to deny the sheer power of selection of variation that we have demonstrated just upon our own domestic stock.
Darwin's model accurately predicts reality. Selection acts upon a population to either select for or against particular variations, resulting in a change in the population.
So predict. Something besides where to find more fossils, which is useful how?
What's the next step in evolutionary development for anything?
It's interesting that when scientists labeled junk DNA as such, that it was the creationists who predicted that it would be found to not be junk after all. Evos mocked it because they didn't like the philosophical rationalization. And who was right?
Science sure didn't predict anti-biotic resistance cause it wasn't until anti-biotic resistant bacteria started showing up that they quit prescribing it like candy.
So tell us about what evolution is going to be so good at predicting.
FWIW, I’m going to predict that this fossil is going to just be another dead end, like all the rest before it.
Why?
Because man didn’t evolve from any animal so there is no connection between man and any bipedal creature. No such creature ever existed and therefore no such fossil will ever be found.
And yes, it is based on the outlook that God created man from the dust of the earth in a separate act of creation. You can not like my reason all you want, but get back to me when they find that fossil that proves the link.
You believe in your own interpretation of the Bible over the evidence of reality.
“But basing your acceptance of the TOE based on the evidence you see is not of faith and to add something that is not of faith to Scripture cannot, by your own reasoning, be pleasing to God.”
I am not adding anything to scripture, I interpret scripture in light of reality and what is known. I know from scripture that I am “made from dust”, I know from biology that I am made via cellular processes involving DNA. That knowledge doesn't “add” to scripture something not of faith, it adds knowledge to the interpretation of scripture.
Previously scripture was interpreted to mean that the Sun circled the Earth. I add knowledge to that interpretation and find that such is not necessitated by scripture and that such an interpretation was an error. Once you have wedded yourself that to believe your particular dogma is to “believe God” you have thrown out any recourse to ever correct yourself.
So if you find the mechanism of evolution unsuited to the task of speciation, tell me, what barrier would stop a 2% genetic change or a 6% genomic change between humans and chimps over several million years?
The lack of several million years? That would be a limit of time, not of the mechanism.
I point out that the more educated one is the less likely they are to be a creationist because once you know that it allows you to correctly guess why creationist sources are so information poor and why creationists are so ill informed and ill educated about science.
A population subjected to heat stress, I predict will evolve heat resistance.
DNA “junk” was never garbage. Garbage is thrown out, “junk” you keep around in case it might be useful someday. Moreover the vast majority of DNA is STILL of unknown purpose, and can still be called “junk”.
Evolution predicts anti-biotic resistance and always has. That is why doctors insist that you take ALL of your antibiotics and not just take them until you feel better.
If I want an enzyme that breaks a bond repeatedly at super low temperatures, I predict that introducing random variation into an enzyme that does something like what I want, and selecting stringently for EXACTLY what I want will get me an enzyme through evolutionary processes, that will make my company millions of dollars.
Science creates knowledge and value and things of use. Evolution creates knowledge and value and things of use.
Creationism creates nothing of any value or use, and imparts no additional knowledge upon its adherents.
Going with the ‘they are all deformed humans or deformed apes’ tactic?
Or do you actually accept that these were a species complete unto themselves that lived in Africa many years ago?
I was made from the dust of the Earth also. Was I not? Was I not also made via cellular processes involving DNA? Was I any less “made from the dust of the Earth” than Adam? Why is it OK for the “from the dust” to have an underlying physical process that science can know and understand in one instance but not the other?
Once again you re-state and miss-characterize what was said so you have something you can answer.
The flying fish was and is a gliding fish. It never became a perfectly winged animal capable of powered flight such as a bird as Darwin speculated using his model.
You took it out of context to make it look like something it was not, a prediction rather than as a hypothetical example.
Typical of the deceitful quote mining creationists regularly engage in.
One might suspect that they know an honest account would doom their argument.
Perhaps that is one of the reasons why the more educated a person is the less likely they are to be a creationist.
NOT once did an anthropologist EVER say man came from monkeys. I suggest you read scientific journals that are more current than the Scopes trial and get it through your head that frauds like Piltdown are used as a teaching tool for what NOT to do with the scientific method. Not that creationists have any kind familiarity with or competent understanding of the scientific method...but someone like you might benefit from a basic study of the Linnaean Classification system.
Look he picked a really absurd example to hypothesize from and it was his faith in his model that allowed him to do that. I am sure he believed it to some degree.
Even nowadays evolutionists use gliding squirrels and the other gliding creatures to suggest that they are in the stage of evolving into a true flying creature.
The whole quote mining thing is another evo red herring anyway. Its very clear what the evolutionist suggests and insinuates, they just like to word it in way that leaves them an out when they get exposed like you have done here.
You cant seriously defend that so you go on the attack at ‘creationists’ again. Its so predictable you are getting tedious.
But were those things or similar concepts suggested to you in your high school education. I doubt that when you got to grad school they asked you to reject what you had been taught on evolution in high school
I am not making blankest statements about scientists, you will notice I use the word evolutionists
Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion—a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality. . . . Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today. 8
Another way of saying "religion" is "worldview," the whole of reality. The evolutionary worldview applies not only to the evolution of life, but even to that of the entire universe. In the realm of cosmic evolution, our naturalistic scientists depart even further from experimental science than life scientists do, manufacturing a variety of evolutionary cosmologies from esoteric mathematics and metaphysical speculation. Socialist Jeremy Rifkin has commented on this remarkable game.
We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, . . . in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated commitment to materialism. . . . we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.10
The author of this frank statement is Richard Lewontin of Harvard. Since evolution is not a laboratory science, there is no way to test its validity, so all sorts of justso stories are contrived to adorn the textbooks. But that doesn't make them true! An evolutionist reviewing a recent book by another (but more critical) evolutionist, says:
We cannot identify ancestors or "missing links," and we cannot devise testable theories to explain how particular episodes of evolution came about. Gee is adamant that all the popular stories about how the first amphibians conquered the dry land, how the birds developed wings and feathers for flying, how the dinosaurs went extinct, and how humans evolved from apes are just products of our imagination, driven by prejudices and preconceptions.11
Flying squirrels are a good example of what a transition from an arboreal leaper to a flier would be, a glider.
Quote mining is a long standing creationist practice, and it is exactly what you tried to do here. Darwin didn't predict that they WOULD evolve into a flying creature, he said that if they did, one would hardly suspect their oceanic origins.
I did seriously defend Darwin's statement. I showed that what you were trying to claim he said was in error from taking it out of context.
I notice that instead of dealing with the notion of transitionals and the power of selective pressure to shape a population you ONCE AGAIN try to make this about me.
This isn't about me, it is about a hominid fossil find and the best methodology to discuss it in a way that leads to further knowledge.
Evolution and science provides a mechanism to discuss this find in a way that furthers knowledge.
Creationism does not. Creationism is an intellectual dead end that leads nowhere and gains no knowledge.
As far as I am concerned those performing research to support the Theory of Evolution ARE scientists. They use the Scientific Method, which demands constant study of hypotheses and constant evaluation of the methods in which evidence is collected and categorized. I dont see Creationists doing this. I see them taking half-truths, old data and twisting it to mean what they want it to mean.
The author of this frank statement is Richard Lewontin of Harvard. Since evolution is not a laboratory science, there is no way to test its validity, so all sorts of justso stories are contrived to adorn the textbooks. But that doesn't make them true! An evolutionist reviewing a recent book by another (but more critical) evolutionist, says:
We cannot identify ancestors or "missing links," and we cannot devise testable theories to explain how particular episodes of evolution came about. Gee is adamant that all the popular stories about how the first amphibians conquered the dry land, how the birds developed wings and feathers for flying, how the dinosaurs went extinct, and how humans evolved from apes are just products of our imagination, driven by prejudices and preconceptions.11
“I'm going to have to share this controversial theory with you: Apes evolved from humans! Just one proof, human children are very good at climbing on n things like outdoor toys and trees. And when a babies hand is touched it automatically grips like an apes.
Recent studies suggest the possibility that some children may not have come down from the trees and became fully adapted to tree life for protection from dangers on the ground.
The ancestral memory lingers on in children as they attempt to build tree “houses and forts”.
Dr. Itup, who joined the research team recently, added,
“Dodetic compounds found along the misalignments of lumbar sonomic inclusion ratios prove it beyond all question!”.
|
|
|||
Gods |
Thanks Little Bill. Ray Stevens re-ping. |
||
|
· Discover · Nat Geographic · Texas AM Anthro News · Yahoo Anthro & Archaeo · Google · · The Archaeology Channel · Excerpt, or Link only? · cgk's list of ping lists · |
|||
That'd be two or three steps down for the chimps, wouldn't it?
Evolution going in reverse?
Besides that there is no reason to go around insulting chimps
Be more considerate, please
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.