Posted on 06/06/2013 2:14:27 PM PDT by EveningStar
The study of the world’s oldest early primate skeleton has brought light to a pivotal event in primate and human evolution: that of the branch split that led to monkeys, apes and humans (anthropoids) on one side, and living tarsiers on the other. The fossil, that was unearthed from an ancient lake bed in central China’s Hubei Province, represents a previously unknown genus and species named Archicebus Achilles. The results of the research were published on 6 June 2013 in Nature. Oldest primate fossil rewrites evolutionary break in human lineage
The fossil, which is 55 million years old and dates from the early Eocene Epoch, was excavated in two separate parts from sedimentary rock strata deposited in an ancient lake.
(Excerpt) Read more at esrf.eu ...
Primate skeleton could give clues about human origins
The oldest known primate skeleton and early haplorhine evolution
ping
Do evolutionists know the precise genes, in progressive sequence, corresponding with each gradual change between progressive species in the line of descent leading from lower primates to to humans?
Or between any progressive species in any line of descent?
I understand natural selection and remain open to the possibility of trans species evolution, although nobody has observed nor can they, to my limited knowledge, logically explain how such mutation could happen and still result in viable offspring. But wild extrapolation from meager evidence is endemic to paleontology and human anthropology. So over the years I've become a knee jerk skeptic reading these kinds of articles.
Another rewrite ???
At least as many as the Bengzahi talking points...
Theories are hard. Dogma is easy.
How about genetic proof of the species that occurred just before evolving into a modern human. Why step back to the beginning if one step back can’t be defined positively.
I have spent a lot of time web searching over the years and have not come up with this answer. It’s possible I am not searching correctly but I have found nothing that answers that question for me. There have been quite a few human-like species in the fossil record. I would like to know when did Species X turned into modern human and what is the evidence that one came from the other?
The theories that are hard are the ones that dissent from the dogma of those who control the scientific publications. Theories that embrace that dogma are much easier on one's career and prospects.
Confucius say man who find ape in family tree monkeying aound.
Theories are still hard, and dogma is still easy. Ain't no spinning it away. It's always easier when you don't have to think about, and you can never be wrong.
Submit the question to them, one of them will no doubt develop a Lie to say yes.
Several of their buddies will no doubt swear to it.
But the research will be classified as a stipulation of their government funding.
As you use the terms, what exactly is the difference between a theory that is proved conclusively and a dogma?
There is really no such thing as a theory that is "proved conclusively". Any theory, even those that are accepted as having been "proved conclusively" is subject to being tested and potentially re-written. You remember the news stories about the faster-than-light neutrinos? For a time (until they found the flaw in their test) it appeared that a "proven conclusively" theory might be wrong. And they were prepeared to re-write that theory if the results could be validated.
Dogma just "is". It must be accepted as being true as an article of faith. There is no point in testing it because it is not going to be changed, regardless of the outcome of any test or evidence to the contrary.
A pale white blonde human can successfully mate with an Australian Aborigine and produce a highly successful female tennis player. And a beagle can, with a little help from a high standing stool, breed something fairly new and bizarre with a Great Dane. But in each case the parents and offspring are members of a single species.
I would not argue that a new species cannot be produced via mutation but it would be helpful and conclusive to see one example of it happening. Maybe we have to wait for another mass extinction to come around before nature feels the need to get creative again in her kitchen.
PS: I personally have no religious issues with Evolution. I can believe in God managing the finite and mortal vessels housing conscious and immortal souls on this speck of dust through a billion year evolutionary process more easily than through an instantaneous wave of some vast magic wand. I feel rather sorry for Atheists. The mystery to me is how one can study nature and not see His work.
I think the distinction you draw between dogma and theory should also consider the observer. The same proposition might be dogma for one person and a theory for another, then I think you would be quite correct that the person treating it as a theory is the one that must do the hard work.
For example, when I drive across a bridge, it is not only because I have faith the materials and workmanship, but implicitly in the theories of mechanics applied by the engineers who designed it. I do not bother to actively doubt or worry about such theories being tested, I just trust that the bridge is going to hold me as a principle that was proved conclusively and think about other things during my drive to work or what not. On the other hand, one day the theories used may need to be rewritten due to research in the field of bridge mechanics. Thus the same propositions of mechanics that are being held by me as a dogma, are treated by those who do research in bridge mechanics as a theory.
Thus the distinction is not so much with the proposition, but whether or not a particular person is trying to actively test the proposition.
However, even my dogmatic faith in the bridge might be shaken one day if I hear of the bridge collapsing...particularly if I am on it. While I was not looking to test the propositions of its mechanics, events have forced me to...thus even for the dogmatic observer a proposition is sometimes potentially re-written and discarded.
To most people then, all questions of science are dogmatic on this view. Since most of us do not test theories. Moreover even scientists test very few theories personally out of all the theories and fields that could be tested.
That's exactly right. "Dogma" and "theory" are both asbstractions. We made them up. There is no concrete "thing" to test whether a proposition is one or the other. The distinction is only in how we assign it in our own mind.
One of the greatest scientific minds of all time, Isaac Newton, is quoted as saying (circa 1720):
In nearly 300 years since Newton, scientists have found many smoother pebbles and prettier shells, while at the same time "the great ocean of truth" has seemed to expand to now include the entire Universe, and possibly beyond...
So, compared to that ever-growing "great ocean of truth" we know even less today than Newton imagined he knew in 1720.
To answer your specific question, a scientific theory does not require perfect knowledge to either confirm or falsify.
It does require that its predictions are confirmed by observed data (aka facts), and this standard is met by the evolution hypothesis.
So it's a scientific theory.
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.