Oldest biped skeleton discovered - new evolution record, 1.2 millions added in one day

http://cooltech.iafrica.com/science/421933.htm ^ | Mon, 07 Mar 2005

[Truth666]

A joint Ethiopian-US team of palaeontologists announced on Saturday they had discovered the world's oldest biped skeleton to be unearthed so far, dating it to between 3.8 and four million years old.

"This is the world's oldest biped," Bruce Latimer, director of the natural history museum in Cleveland, Ohio, told a news conference in the Ethiopian capital, adding that "it will revolutionise the way we see human evolution".

The bones were found three weeks ago in Ethiopia's Afar region, at a site some 60 kilometres from Hadar where Lucy, one of the first hominids, was discovered in 1974. Researchers at the site in northeast Ethiopia have in all unearthed 12 hominid fossils, of which parts of one skeleton were discovered.

[js1138]

Just working my way through...

http://www.liebertonline.com/doi/abs/10.1089/107662903765826723?cookieSet=1

[js1138]

Here we see a quote showing doubt about abiogenesis, but not about evolution.

http://www.publish.csiro.au/helix/cf/issues/th50c.cfm

[js1138]

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=434176

[js1138]

There's a pattern here. Your respected biologists who list their names with ICR are doing mainstream research on things like mutations and antibiotic resistence. A disbelief in abiogenesis is not equivalent to disbelief in evolution.

Do you have the names of anyone doing anything specific to creation science or ID?

[ThisLittleLightofMine]

I respectfully disagree with you. Facts are facts, we all are aware of what we have, I believe the difference is in how we view (interpret) the data. We could debate all day long over and neither one of us would be convinced or swayed to the other's opinion. Countless physicists, scientists etc. also disagree with Darwin's Theory, and yet they remain at the top of their fields. There is a conflict between the Christian Faith and Darwin's Theory (if one believes that The Bible is the inspired Word of God)

I pulled this www.answersingenesis.org, I am sure you are familiar with this site. It is were all of us "uneducated freaks that don't understand science find our apologetics /sarcasm on". I once believed I could have it both ways but that has changed over time. The Bible is not a science book and I realize this, but if one has faith in God, how could God contradict Himself? He can't.

In a video distributed by the American Skeptics Society, Dr Michael Shermer says Charles Darwin contributed seven notable things to the world.1 How do these seven contributions of Darwin compare with what the Bible says?

1. Darwin 'changed the world from being seen as static to evolving' (changing). That is, microbes, over billions of years, changed into trees, animals and men. Living things do not reproduce true to their type after all, but change into different things, the evolutionist believes.

The Bible: 'And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so. And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good' (Genesis 1:11-12). Things reproduce after their kind.

2. Darwin 'established the implausibility of creationism'. God did not create things; they arose through natural processes.

The Bible: 'For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is' (Exodus 20:11).

3. Darwin 'refuted cosmic teleology' (that is, that the universe has a purpose). The existence of the universe is just a giant accident; it has no purpose.

The Bible: 'The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork' (Psalm 19:1).

4. Darwin 'established materialistic/naturalistic philosophy'. That is, God is an unnecessary hypothesis.

The Bible: 'The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God' (Psalm 14:1).

5. Darwin 'ended Aristotelian essentialism' (that is, the belief that things live because of some vital essence, life force, or spirit, rather than because of mechanisms understandable to scientists).2

The Bible: The (Darwinian) belief that life would carry on without God is not biblical. 'And he [Jesus] is before all things, and by him all things consist' [hold together] (Colossians 1:17).

6. Darwin 'refuted catastrophism'. For Darwin, present processes operating over long periods of time accounted for the world and everything in it.

The Bible: 'Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation. For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished' (2 Peter 3:3-6).

7. Darwin 'ended absolute anthropocentrism'. That is, Shermer claims that Darwin established that man is just an animal; man is nothing special. He is just another accident of cosmic evolution, with no ultimate purpose.

The Bible: 'And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them' (Genesis 1:26-27). 'The heavens declare the glory of God' (Psalm 19:1).

It should be obvious that the Bible contradicts all seven 'contributions' of Darwin in some way. Mixing the two results in an unholy mess. Do oil and water mix? What fellowship has light with darkness? (2 Corinthians 6:14). Let us not try to mix evolution and the Bible — they just don't go together!

[DannyTN]

I couldn't access this one at Liebertonline.

[js1138]

That requires a subscription. the link at #103 does not.

[DannyTN]

"Here we see a quote showing doubt about abiogenesis, but not about evolution. "

True, but remember depending on the forum, you can't speak directly against evolution and hope to get published at all. See his interview with Creation Magazine, where he clearly doesn't believe that man evolved from apes. He has some interesting takes on viruses in this article too.

Dr. Ian Macreadie interview with Creation Magazine

[js1138]

Let us not try to mix evolution and the Bible ...

So having set up this dichotomy, which do you choose?

Before you start talking about mainstream scientists who disagree with evolution, I'd suggest you take a look at post #97 and #103. I have a running challenge to find me the name of a respected biologist regestered as a supporter of ICR, whose published research does not support evolution.

[taxesareforever]

Like it or not, humans and apes are part of the same family tree, species Hominidae.

Like it or not, humans and apes are NOT part of the same family tree. See Genesis 1:26

[taxesareforever]

If you disagree, feel free to support your belief by stating a set of characteristic features which delineate the ape family, which humans do not also share.

Just because an airplane flies and a bird flies doesn't make them of the same species. And by the way, a characteristic that apes and man don't share? Speech. And another: A brain which knows right from wrong. And another: Humans have souls

[js1138]

So he says one thing in his published writings and another thing to ICR and AIG. Not surprising. He is, however, passing up a Nobel prize by not following up on his specultions about viruses.

[Liberal Classic]

I respectfully disagree with you.

Likewise.

Facts are facts, we all are aware of what we have, I believe the difference is in how we view (interpret) the data.

With modern DNA sequencing technology, we can rapidly analyze the genes of simple organisms such as bacteria. We can test for genetic markers, expose the bacteria to a variety of environmental conditions, and measure the rate of change in their DNA over time. I would disagree that it is simply a matter of interpreting the data, because we can now directly observe microevolution in action. This makes microevolution factual, not theoretical, and evidence for macroevolutionary theory. Therefore it is likely that we are not even in agreement of what the facts are in the first place.

There is a conflict between the Christian Faith and Darwin's Theory...

Only because some people choose to elevate evolutionary theory as being a religion. The modern synthesis theory of evolution is comprised of Darwin's theory of natural selection, Mendel's theory of inheritance, and modern discoveries in molecular chemistry and microbiology that have occured since the description of the DNA molecule by Watson and Crick. However, modern synthesis theory does not attempt to answer the questions of life, the universe, and everything. Evolution does not seek to answer where did life come from in the first place. It is only an attempt to describe the variety of plants and animals we now see around us, as well as the forensic evidence of extinct plants and animals left behind. It does not seek to replace faith in the Creator, nor does it give us any answers to important questions such as why are we here, and how should we act.

The Bible is not a science book and I realize this...

Then why suggest that there is conflict between science and religion? Science is a tool. It is a means, not an end.

In a video distributed by the American Skeptics Society, Dr Michael Shermer says Charles Darwin contributed seven notable things to the world.

I have never seen this video nor heard of Michael Shermer. Why should I take his word that Darwin has really contributed to these things, or even that these are the contributions that are really important?

[Taliesan]

Actually I understand that 50% of your genes resemble a banana. But that is equally applicable to common design as common descent.

If B resembles A, then A must be the source of B. A common source C is not possible.

[Taliesan]

I don't see the serious responsible branch rebuking the National Enquirer branch for the unscientific methodology inherent in speculating that natural selection is the source of characteristics that have not been proven to be biologically based.

[js1138]

Oh please, there are whole magazines devoted to debunking junk science. The Skeptical Inquirer is one. But this is tedious and time consuming work.

If you are offended by "research" that consists of mining data from questionaires, then don't read the stuff, except as light entertainment.

[TruBluKentuckian]

"Infamous exemplar of creationist nonsense: Dinosaurs: Science Or Science Fiction."

That may be the funniest piece of humor writing I've ever seen...

What??? That was serious?? It's not a joke???? That's not satire??

Geeze... that's scary...

and sad.

[Modernman]

By the way, my geneology does not show anything resembling an ape in it.

Of course it doesn't. Evolution talks about species, not individuals. You are personally descended from other humans. We, as a species, are descended from apes (in fact, our species is a form of ape).

[<1/1,000,000th%]

It is time to require that people stop basing science upon the presumption that evolution occurred, it is one theory and should not be the foundation for all science.

Your statement is grossly ignorant. Evolutionary biology is not the foundation for all science.

Produce your billion year old human fossil and revolutionize the field.

[<1/1,000,000th%]

They had rocks that had been "carbon dated" to be 140million years old.

Creationist propaganda. Everyone knows carbon dating is only valid up to 50,000 years. You're going to have to find some websites from this century.