Posted on 02/08/2016 9:25:11 AM PST by JimSEA
South Africa's Australopithecus sediba, discovered in 2008 at the archaeological site of Malapa in the Cradle of Humankind World Heritage Site, is again helping us to study and understand the origins of humans. Research published in 2012 garnered international attention by suggesting that a possible early human ancestor had lived on a diverse woodland diet including hard foods mixed in with tree bark, fruit, leaves and other plant products.
But new research by an international team of researchers now shows that Australopithecus sediba didn't have the jaw and tooth structure necessary to exist on a steady diet of hard foods.
"Most australopiths had amazing adaptations in their jaws, teeth and faces that allowed them to process foods that were difficult to chew or crack open. Among other things, they were able to efficiently bite down on foods with very high forces," said team leader David Strait, PhD, professor of anthropology in Arts & Sciences at Washington University in St. Louis.
(Excerpt) Read more at sciencedaily.com ...
Get a load of this guy, JimSEA.
He convinces me that evolutionary scientists are absolutely, 100% correct, and then goes into an autistic fit and calls them “incoherent” when they don’t agree with him that an invisible sky fairy made evolution.
I’m going to watch Better Call Saul on the DVR with my wife. Maybe you can talk to Spergy McSperglord and help him with how incompatible his invisible fairy delusions are with real life, 100% observable and verifiable science.
Sorry you’re angry old fat man, a basic understanding of biology might relieve your confusion.
What confusion? Not confused anymore, read my post, evolutionary scientists are 100% correct.
BroJoe whats-his-ass is the one who think an invisible sky fairy started evolution.
I said nothing of the sort, but as in everything else, you distort and misrepresent here in order to make your Straw Man argument easier to answer.
Belief in our Creator is a matter of choice, one that many scientists throughout history make.
Here is a listing of hundreds of well-known scientists who are or were also Christians, dozens of whom specifically studied evolution.
See what I mean, Jim?
Further up the thread he claims his sky fairy used evolution to create its creatures.
Now all of a sudden it’s a strawman when I paraphrase his own claim.
Typical invisible sky fairy magical thinking and ignorance of logical fallacies.
I’m afraid you’ll find little comfort or confirmation from me. Science doesn’t do God or gods. A hypothesis must be falsifiable in science (of course, since theories start out as hypothesis, they two must be falsifiable). “God did it” is not falsifiable. I can’t prove or disprove it. By the same line of reasoning, “horses and donkeys are different species where a species is defined as the largest group of organisms where two individuals are capable of reproducing fertile offspring, typically using sexual reproduction” is a hypothesis that is capable of either being confirmed or falsified by observation and testing.
It makes life more simple for me. The theory of evolution doesn’t deal with God nor does Geology and its central unifying theory of plate tectonics. However, the science of geology fits nicely with the theory of evolution with many observations that confirm evolution.
I’m afraid you’ll find little comfort or confirmation from me. Science doesn’t do God or gods.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Exactly, thank you! The only confirmation or comfort I wanted from you is your consistency.
If evolution created the creatures we see today, then there is no need for a creator god, is there? 94.5% of evolutionary scientists are atheists (the highest percentage among all disciplines) for good reason.
NOMA is lame-ass excuse. It’s simply a rhetorical strategy to get Christians like BroJoeK off your back with regard to evolution. Whisper the sweet nothings into their gullible ears and they’ll swallow evolution AND their creator fairy.
I didn’t say you have to be an atheist to be a scientist, I just said you can’t use science to prove or disprove God. Your position on God is a matter of belief, philosophy. I oppose abortion because I know a unique human being begins at conception. Science will tell me that. I believe it is important to honor and protect human life. I can’t prove that is a “good” belief or not. Science says what is, not what should be. I accept the Bible as a book written by many different sincere people. It is a mix of allegory, history and remarkable theology. It presents what I believe is a “good” way to live. I believe but I cannot prove.
I can go out in back of my house to the near mountain and tell you what rocks make it up, how they were formed, why they are layered and deposited and how old it is. That’s an entirely different undertaking than explaining my values.
I've said nothing about a "sky fairy", so it should cause you some pause to realize that you are here misrepresenting -- lying about -- both yourself and me, and for what purpose?
You came here first defending anti-evolution, then mid-stream, switching tacks, flipping to alleged pro-evolution, anti-religion.
All the while you do this, you misrepresent both your own and other positions.
In other words, nothing you've posted, from the beginning has been honest or truthful.
Apparently it's just argument for argument's sake -- instead of spreading the love, you are spreading the anger of an old fat man -- which makes me wonder if even that is also a lie.
As I've said from the beginning: your arguments sound sophomoric, meaning coming from a young person, smart enough, sure, but not old enough to have learned better.
So, again, my advice is to focus first on being honest & truthful, which could begin by getting rid of that stupid screen name, then coming back as somebody more devoted to truth, facts, reason & yes, love.
You came here first defending anti-evolution, then mid-stream, switching tacks, flipping to alleged pro-evolution, anti-religion.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Your convincing demeanor and loving tone did that. You showed me the truth, and I accepted it.
Thanks!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I’ve said nothing about a “sky fairy”, so it should cause you some pause to realize that you are here misrepresenting — lying about — both yourself and me, and for what purpose?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
What lie? The only lies I see on this thread are yours. Attribution of creation to a god (that can’t be detected with any method or device - a fairy by any other name would be just as magical), when evolution alone will do nicely, for instance.
What purpose do you have in telling such lies? I’ll go ahead and tell you: you’re a religious fanatic. Otherwise you wouldn’t be so obnoxious, outraged, and demanding, like you’re on a crusade or jihad.
Agree with BroJoeK or be a heretic! He shall put the screws to thee!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
So, again, my advice is to focus first on being honest & truthful, which could begin by getting rid of that stupid screen name, then coming back as somebody more devoted to truth, facts, reason & yes, love.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
You don’t like my attitude or screen name? Tango Sierra, deal with it. Take your advice and shove it sideways, REMF paper-pushing loser. Go to Hell (which I don’t believe in), go straight to Hell, do not pass Go, do not collect $200.
Quote for today:
The conflict is fundamental and goes much deeper than modern liberal theologians, religious leaders and scientists are willing to admit. Most contemporary scientists, the majority of them by far, are atheists or something very close to that. And among evolutionary biologists, I would challenge the reader to name the prominent scientists who are ‘devoutly religious.’ I am skeptical that one could get beyond the fingers of one hand. Indeed, I would be interested to learn of a single one. - William Provine
I didn’t say you have to be an atheist to be a scientist,
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
To be an evolutionary biologist, you can’t be intellectually honest and believe in the Christian God at the same time.
But you can be as intellectually dishonest as possible by ducking the issue with NOMA. Which is exactly what I see you doing because you don’t want BroJoeK on your ass.
Just admit it, you are an atheist. If you can’t, why not?
Fascinating and quite the accomplishment for humans to discover it.
Is reading difficult for you?
“However, while a metaphorical tree seems helpful in visualizing evolution, nobody pretends all of its trunks, branches & points of connection have yet been found.”
I appreciate the discussion on this topic. I think it an understatement to say that all points of connection have not been found. From the tree you posted, I don’t see any points of connection (common ancestors) — only cousins or siblings. There is assumed to be a species at the node points where the branches split, correct? But none are identified. Maybe this tree is too dated?
Consider the case of Neanderthals, where ancient DNA was recovered & analyzed.
It showed that Neanderthals were not our direct ancestors, that our common ancestor preceded Neanderthals by several hundred thousand years, but also that there had been some interbreeding between Neanderthals & modern humans around 50,000 years ago.
That's a lot to learn which we didn't know before, and iirc, similar analyses have been done on pre-human Denisovans and maybe even "Hobbits" from Indonesia.
My point is: with DNA analysis we can say for sure who was related to whom & how.
Without DNA all we can do is make educated guesses.
And there's been no DNA recovered from 99.99% of the fossils ever found, so exact relationships are unknown.
Further, the evidence suggests complete speciation between two related populations can take circa a million years.
By that I'm suggesting:
Again, point is: there's no way to tell, just by looking at fossils how much interbreeding went on, or, indeed, just how closely related two species may have been.
So that's where the gaps in the fossil record get filled in by evolution theory, which says: ultimately, every species can be traced back to its common ancestors, even if those were many tens of millions of years ago.
To pick an example, modern DNA confirms theory of ancient common ancestry among elephants, hyraxes and manatees.
However, it's doubtful if fossils for the actual ancestors have been found, and there's no way to say for certain if any particular fossil is, or is not, directly in those lines.
angryoldfatman to JimSEA: "Just admit it, you are an atheist."
In fact, its just angryoldfatman who's all over the board, first one thing, then something else, flailing this way, flailing the other, always posing, consistent only in the fact that whatever he attacks, he attacks wildly & irrationally.
None of his accusations are true, all of his assertions false.
But apparently, none of that bothers him, his conscience does not speak to him about it, perhaps because, we might guess, he's been told that if you're old and fat and angry, you're allowed to say whatever the heck pops into your mind, and let the rest of the world go to h*ll?
Again, my suggestion from post #30 is: seek spiritual help from somebody qualified to provide it.
Indeed, the more I consider it, the more amazing it seems, to the point where it's hard to imagine such a thing common in the Universe.
You know, we sometimes like to speak of "American exceptionalism", for good and justified reasons...
Well, I'd like to suggest "Terran exceptionalism", meaning life on Earth is so improbable as to be almost unique in the Universe -- maybe one in a million stars, maybe one in a billion, maybe even no others.
And that would be my assumption until, until evidence is found proving otherwise.
I agree. The diversity of life that we observe here on Earth is probably extremely rare, or one of a kind based on what we observe at this time. That can change, but I doubt it.
No. How about you?
Are you an atheist? Simple question, Mr. Literacy Tester.
Repent.
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.