Oldest primate fossil rewrites evolutionary break in human lineage

ESRF (European Synchrotron Radiation Facility) ^ | June 6, 2013 | Kirstin Colvin

[reasonisfaith]

The greatest challenge to the intellect is whether or not one can begin to question his own most deeply held beliefs.

Ant the ability to suspend disbelief.

For the naturalist, this would mean taking a new, skeptical approach to things like whether there might be holes in the idea that natural selection and speciation are truly consistent with empirical reasoning.

And whether there might be any flaws in the premises needed to have total faith in the accuracy of radiometric dating.

[reasonisfaith]

“But there is no geological evidence — zero, zip, nada — of a single world-wide flood in recent times which covered every mountain to the depth of 23 feet, and then somehow receded again to current levels.”

To say this you must first say to yourself evidence is only evidence if it agrees with your conclusions.

A truly intellectual approach is one which looks at both sides of a controversy, weighs the evidence, and then decides which is the more plausible.

Many scholarly books have been written on the flood. Start with “In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood” by Walt Brown. Also see “The Genesis Flood” by Whitcomb and Morris.

[reasonisfaith]

There are no accounts of creation which come anywhere near the plausibility of that told to us in the Bible.

[tacticalogic]

There are no accounts of creation which come anywhere near the plausibility of that told to us in the Bible.

You seem to be avoiding the question.

You're telling me that the story of Noah cannot be discounted without first proving God (of the Bible) doesn't exist, but that any other creation story can be discounted simply on the grounds that it's "implausible". Right?

[BroJoeK]

reasonisfaith: "For the naturalist, this would mean taking a new, skeptical approach to things like whether there might be holes in the idea that natural selection and speciation are truly consistent with empirical reasoning."

"Whether there might be holes in the idea" is not a tool of formal scientific methodology.
Instead, it belongs in the intuitive "brain-storming" stage prior to proposing a new hypothesis.
So it's on the path by which a scientist goes from data-analysis to formally proposing a testable new hypothesis.

And let me suggest to you: for every one new hypothesis proposed -- a hundred, or a thousand, likely ideas get ginned-up, kicked around and knocked down because they don't stand up to normal tests of reasonableness.
Ideas which make it through the brain-storming phase to become formal hypotheses must next be tested to see if they can be falsified.

Hypotheses which pass their initial falsification tests are graduated up to the level of "theory", meaning a confirmed hypothesis, pending further tests.
And that's as high as it can go, scientifically.
There is no higher category for a scientific idea, short of it becoming an observed fact, which is often impossible.

So evolution is a confirmed hypothesis -- a theory.
Historically, there have been other related hypotheses proposed and confirmed, which clarify the evolutionary processes of descent with modifications and natural selection.
There were also, long ago, competing hypotheses under different names, which have long since been falsified and so consigned to the "dustbins of history".

But there are no recent scientific hypotheses which would if confirmed overthrow the basic evolution idea.

All such suggestions have been religion-based, and not even testable, which means they violate science's first principles, including, "natural explanations for natural processes".
That's why they aren't taken seriously by most scientists.

reasonisfaith: "And whether there might be any flaws in the premises needed to have total faith in the accuracy of radiometric dating."

Science is never about "total faith" in anything.
Even where science is used to launch human beings into outer space, the science is tested, tested and retested.
Anyone who drives a vehicle knows it is only as reliable as its last service checkup, and even then not always.

But radio-metric dating is not just one tool, it is about two dozen different methodologies, most of which overlap with others and can therefore be used to confirm or falsify results of any one test.

Furthermore, there are totally independent measurements of light-year distances to stars and galaxies throughout the Universe, which show the most distant stars over 10 billion light years away, and our own Milky Way Galaxy 100,000 light-years across, takes 200 million years per rotation and includes as its oldest stars 13 billion years old.
That same science dates our Sun as 4.6 billion years old.

All of that independently places earth-based radiometric age dating within its larger context, and helps to confirm the age numbers.

[BroJoeK]

reasonisfaith: "A truly intellectual approach is one which looks at both sides of a controversy, weighs the evidence, and then decides which is the more plausible.
Many scholarly books have been written on the flood.
Start with “In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood” by Walt Brown.
Also see “The Genesis Flood” by Whitcomb and Morris."

Sorry, but scientifically speaking, there is no controversy, and there are not two sides to consider.
There is only scientific evidence and theory on the one side, and any number of non-scientific assertions -- mostly religion based -- which by scientific rule cannot be considered, except as coincidence may suggest correlations.

As I said before, the scientific evidence is chock-full of regional and world-wide catastrophes, from asteroid strikes to volcanic eruptions to outburst floods.
But none matches precisely the Bible's Noah story, and any "scholars" who claim otherwise are simply not scientific.

Indeed, I would ask you again to consider that the point of Noah's story is to show God's Promise that no such flood will ever happen again.

So think about this: does not science prove that God's Promise can be relied on?

In that sense doesn't science, once again, confirm the Bible?

;-)

[tacticalogic]

I’m trying to get a handle on this arrangement that says before you can discount the story of Noah you must first disprove the existence of God, but it’s okay do discount any other theory simply because it sounds implausible.

[reasonisfaith]

Look carefully at our conversation.

All I’m saying is that once you accept the truth of God’s existence according to the Bible, you cannot refute the story of Noah by using naturalistic arguments. This is because God acts outside the laws of nature.

I can’t logically accept other religious accounts, because they are contradicted by the one I have already accepted as true.

If you cannot derive your answer from this, then restate the question concisely and I’ll answer it for you.

[reasonisfaith]

The “geologic column” is based on the fossil record, while the age of fossils are determined by where they are found in the geologic column.

See the problem?

[reasonisfaith]

“Sorry, but scientifically speaking, there is no controversy, and there are not two sides to consider.”

This is exactly what they used to say about “global warming” before they saw it wasn’t working and switched the name to “climate change.”

Again, look at Walt Brown’s “In the Beginning.”

[tacticalogic]

All I’m saying is that once you accept the truth of God’s existence according to the Bible, you cannot refute the story of Noah by using naturalistic arguments. This is because God acts outside the laws of nature.

You seem to be trying to establish a case for Biblical literalism by making the belief in the existence of God dependent on belief in the literal text of the Bible.

I understand your religious beliefs dictate that for you these questions are already answered and any further debate is neither needed nor wanted. What I don't understand is why it's necessary to try to disrupt the discussion and debate by people who don't subscribe to the same degree of literalism that you do and can discuss it based on the physical evidence.

[reasonisfaith]

It’s simple logic.

Take any part of the story of Noah commonly referenced by opponents: impossible to get all the animals in it, impossible to feed all the animals, impossible to create enough water to flood the whole planet, impossible to repopulate humanity with just Noah and his family—what am I forgetting to mention?

The logic goes like this: if God is truly the creator of the universe, then none of the above would be impossible or even difficult for him.

[tacticalogic]

And if some other diety is the creator of the universe, then whatever creation story is attributed to them would not be impossible of difficult for them. Yet you have no problem dismissing those as “implausible”, and I assume you’d have no problem with scientists in general doing the same.

[reasonisfaith]

Can you give me an example of what “other deity” you’re talking about, so we can then confirm whether or not you’re being accurate when you say that I “have no problem dismissing those as implausible.”

[BroJoeK]

reasonisfaith: "The “geologic column” is based on the fossil record, while the age of fossils are determined by where they are found in the geologic column.
See the problem?"

Yes, I know this is an article of faith amongst anti-evolutionists, but it's simply not true.

All geological dating is based ultimately on radio-metric techniques, plus a thorough understanding of how various geological processes work.

If I might cite an example: on the Columbia River in the state of Washington are canyons which geologists determine were caused by "outburst-floods" from Lake Missoula in the "recent" geological past -- circa 15,000 years ago.
These floods were caused by the lake periodically breaking through ice dams.
Canyons resulting from outburst-floods are distinct and there's no mistaking them for other types of canyons, for example, the Grand Canyon.

Where Columbia River canyons were quickly formed by outburst-floods, the Grand Canyon was formed over millions of years by the Colorado River slowly cutting down through the rising plateau around it.
Indeed, where the Grand Canyon does include at least one example of out-burst flooding, evidences of it are distinct from other sections of canyon.

Point is, there's no mistaking those two processes.
Even without radio-metric dating, they are obvious to trained geologists.
Radio-metric dating simply confirms what their own detailed studies already tell them.

Yes, fossils found in one location can help date those exact same fossils in another location, as can recognized geological strata.
Doubtless the best known example of that is the famous K-T boundary, which separates dinosaurs from everything which came afterwards.
That boundary is distinct enough, and has been radio-metrically dated often enough, that a trained geologist on seeing it can instantly know its age and composition.

Point is: notwithstanding your article of faith to the contrary, there's nothing "circular" about dating of fossils.

Results of outburst-flooding on Columbia River:

Compare to Grand Canyon formed over millions of years:

[BroJoeK]

reasonisfaith: "This is exactly what they used to say about “global warming” before they saw it wasn’t working and switched the name to 'climate change.' "

And they say the same about Newton's Laws, and Einstein's theories, and that doesn't make those untrue, does it, FRiend?

"Global Warming" is an almost unique case where a large scientific community was caught in the act of corrupting its own data to conform to a political agenda.
No evidence of similar scale corruption exists for other important scientific enterprises, most notably for evolution theory.

One reason is that research into evolution has been going on for now 150+ years, with scientific generation after generation exploring deeper and learning more about our past.
In all that time, evolution theory has stood every test proposed to falsify it.

Evolution is also confirmed by data from virtually every other branch of science, including now DNA analysis.

[tacticalogic]

Bor from Norse mythology, Alum from the Egyption creation story, and Brahma and Vishnu from the Hindu religion are some examples. There are many more. All of these are dieties attributed with and having the power to create the world. Can you prove that they do not exist?

[BrandtMichaels]

So then you must also be familiar the Shannon’s Theory of Information? Whereby all code indicates a designer and conversely no code can write nor alter itself at random and be successful without an outside intelligence directing same.

I know my programs would not survive spontaneous unguided accidental changes without quickly being found useless and I see much scientific research on biological mutations doing the same ~ afterall 99.9% of all living ‘kinds’ are no more.

[BrandtMichaels]

There is much more contradictory and conflicting evidence found against evolution in the last 150 years - you just refuse to read any of it with an open mind is all. This is especially true regarding ‘junk’ DNA and what is treated as science but still based upon assumptions.

[BroJoeK]

BrandtMichaels: "So then you must also be familiar the Shannon’s Theory of Information?
Whereby all code indicates a designer and conversely no code can write nor alter itself at random and be successful without an outside intelligence directing same."

So we're clear: I believe an "Intelligent Designer" created the Universe, and science tells us the tools He used to form life as we see today include processes described by basic evolution theory.

Basic evolution hypothesis rises from two confirmed observations (aka: facts), namely 1) Descent with Modifications and 2) Natural Selection.
The hypothesis is confirmed -- making it a theory -- by many other findings, including geological strata, fossil records, radio-metric dating, increasingly sophisticated DNA analysis, astronomical dating for time-scales, and all of basic biology.

Have some people decried alleged "flaws" or "holes" in evolution theory?
Sure, but nearly all with a particular theological ax to grind, none confirmed scientifically as "overthrowing" evolution and none recognized as supporting some other scientific hypothesis.

It's important to remember that basic evolution theory does not address the question of life's first origin on Earth.
For that, several hypotheses have been proposed, ranging from abiogenesis to panspermia, and many scientists are working (to date less than successfully) to confirm their own favorite hypothesis.

Therefore so far: evolution begins with something that is clearly recognized as living, and including some form of primitive DNA.
Once these are in place, then Descent with Modifications and Natural Selection are certain to follow, resulting in some increasingly complex organisms.

Of course, in my own opinion, the Intelligent Designer is responsible for both Descent with Modifications and Natural Selection along with everything else in the Natural Realm.

But science, by definition, only encompasses natural explanations for natural processes, and therefore cannot refer to the Supernatural Creator of everything, including evolution.