|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465
Legend
|
OP
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465 |
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091001/ap_on_sc/us_sci_before_lucyBefore Lucy came Ardi, new earliest hominid found WASHINGTON – The story of humankind is reaching back another million years as scientists learn more about "Ardi," a hominid who lived 4.4 million years ago in what is now Ethiopia. The 110-pound, 4-foot female roamed forests a million years before the famous Lucy, long studied as the earliest skeleton of a human ancestor. This older skeleton reverses the common wisdom of human evolution, said anthropologist C. Owen Lovejoy of Kent State University. Rather than humans evolving from an ancient chimp-like creature, the new find provides evidence that chimps and humans evolved from some long-ago common ancestor — but each evolved and changed separately along the way. "This is not that common ancestor, but it's the closest we have ever been able to come," said Tim White, director of the Human Evolution Research Center at the University of California, Berkeley. The lines that evolved into modern humans and living apes probably shared an ancestor 6 million to 7 million years ago, White said in a telephone interview. But Ardi has many traits that do not appear in modern-day African apes, leading to the conclusion that the apes evolved extensively since we shared that last common ancestor. A study of Ardi, under way since the first bones were discovered in 1994, indicates the species lived in the woodlands and could climb on all fours along tree branches, but the development of their arms and legs indicates they didn't spend much time in the trees. And they could walk upright, on two legs, when on the ground. Formally dubbed Ardipithecus ramidus — which means root of the ground ape — the find is detailed in 11 research papers published Thursday by the journal Science. "This is one of the most important discoveries for the study of human evolution," said David Pilbeam, curator of paleoanthropology at Harvard's Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology. "It is relatively complete in that it preserves head, hands, feet and some critical parts in between. It represents a genus plausibly ancestral to Australopithecus — itself ancestral to our genus Homo," said Pilbeam, who was not part of the research teams. Scientists assembled the skeleton from 125 pieces. Lucy, also found in Africa, thrived a million years after Ardi and was of the more human-like genus Australopithecus. "In Ardipithecus we have an unspecialized form that hasn't evolved very far in the direction of Australopithecus. So when you go from head to toe, you're seeing a mosaic creature that is neither chimpanzee, nor is it human. It is Ardipithecus," said White. White noted that Charles Darwin, whose research in the 19th century paved the way for the science of evolution, was cautious about the last common ancestor between humans and apes. "Darwin said we have to be really careful. The only way we're really going to know what this last common ancestor looked like is to go and find it. Well, at 4.4 million years ago we found something pretty close to it," White said. "And, just like Darwin appreciated, evolution of the ape lineages and the human lineage has been going on independently since the time those lines split, since that last common ancestor we shared." Some details about Ardi in the collection of papers: • Ardi was found in Ethiopia's Afar Rift, where many fossils of ancient plants and animals have been discovered. Findings near the skeleton indicate that at the time it was a wooded environment. Fossils of 29 species of birds and 20 species of small mammals were found at the site. • Geologist Giday WoldeGabriel of Los Alamos National Laboratory was able to use volcanic layers above and below the fossil to date it to 4.4 million years ago. • Ardi's upper canine teeth are more like the stubby ones of modern humans than the long, sharp, pointed ones of male chimpanzees and most other primates. An analysis of the tooth enamel suggests a diverse diet, including fruit and other woodland-based foods such as nuts and leaves. • Paleoanthropologist Gen Suwa of the University of Tokyo reported that Ardi's face had a projecting muzzle, giving her an ape-like appearance. But it didn't thrust forward quite as much as the lower faces of modern African apes do. Some features of her skull, such as the ridge above the eye socket, are quite different from those of chimpanzees. The details of the bottom of the skull, where nerves and blood vessels enter the brain, indicate that Ardi's brain was positioned in a way similar to modern humans, possibly suggesting that the hominid brain may have been already poised to expand areas involving aspects of visual and spatial perception. • Ardi's hand and wrist were a mix of primitive traits and a few new ones, but they don't include the hallmark traits of the modern tree-hanging, knuckle-walking chimps and gorillas. She had relatively short palms and fingers which were flexible, allowing her to support her body weight on her palms while moving along tree branches, but she had to be a careful climber because she lacked the anatomical features that allow modern-day African apes to swing, hang and easily move through the trees. • The pelvis and hip show the gluteal muscles were positioned so she could walk upright. • Her feet were rigid enough for walking but still had a grasping big toe for use in climbing. The research was funded by the National Science Foundation, the Institute of Geophysics and Planetary Physics of the University of California, Los Alamos National Laboratory, the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science and others.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,649 Likes: 95
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,649 Likes: 95 |
Quote:
This older skeleton reverses the common wisdom of human evolution
But wait dude, Scientists know everything. Scientists had this all figured out. Remember? God can't exist because scientists said so. Scientists had this whole evolution business proved years ago. - Buncha idiots.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,877
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,877 |
Did you read the article?
This doesn't disprove the theory of evolution. It just changes the time line.
"People who drink light 'beer' don't like the taste of beer; they just like to pee a lot."
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465
Legend
|
|
OP
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465 |
Quote:
Did you read the article?
This doesn't disprove the theory of evolution. It just changes the time line.
More than just the time line...
Quote:
Rather than humans evolving from an ancient chimp-like creature, the new find provides evidence that chimps and humans evolved from some long-ago common ancestor — but each evolved and changed separately along the way.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,825 Likes: 516
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,825 Likes: 516 |
Quote:
Did you read the article?
This doesn't disprove the theory of evolution. It just changes the time line.
Did you read it? It changes the time line, yes, but it also specifically says that humans and chimps evolved from yet some other unknown, but each evolved in different ways.
Interesting - yet some other unknown - but now evolution should be taken as correct yet again, since what was once held as proof has been proven false.
Apparently ardi was the red headed step child in the evolution process - she got the bad genes that kept her a chimp, while some other "thing" got the good genes that made them human?
No, what this article is saying is not pro evolution, not anti evolution - what it's saying is "everything we thought we knew might not be true".
Nothing more, nothing less, in my opinion.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,411 Likes: 463
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,411 Likes: 463 |
The more we think we know ..... lol
I find it amazing that anything once living would last for 4 million years. That's just astonishing to me.
I also am reminded that we really do know very little about the history of our world when it comes right down to it. There could have been civilizations that are completely and forever lost to the sands of time ...... Perhaps advanced cities reduced to dust over time ..... who knows?
I read an article that claimed that if man disappeared from the face of the Earth, (without any violent cause) all traces of his existance would be gone within something like 10,000 years. Cities ... roads .... everything just lost to time.
Comparing 10,000 years to 4.4 makes me wonder what else may have vanished without a trace ......
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 28,163 Likes: 845
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 28,163 Likes: 845 |
 A little hung up on nothing, aren't we?? Based upon the evidence on hand, it was the THEORY that was commonly accepted. The NEW EVIDENCE, trashes that THEORY and has caused them to come to a new THEORY. Quote:
Buncha idiots.
The only idiots are those that think they have it all figured out... be it from a book of religion or a book of science.
That said, one path seeks to discover the truth for itself, regardless of what it may be, and adjust what it thinks the truth is as it discovers more - while the other path is already convinced of their truth (kinda... because so many different flavors believe so many different things) and is offended that you don't believe it as they do and have the audacity to question it and seek the answers for yourself.
Like most things, I believe that the real truth will lie somewhere in between, and both sides will end up having equal amounts of correctness to them...it isn't too hard to think of ways that the theories of Creationism and Evolutionism can coexist and help explain holes in each other's story.
God said "Let there be light".... and there was a Big Bang.
Browns is the Browns
... there goes Joe Thomas, the best there ever was in this game.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 Likes: 280
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 Likes: 280 |
Quote:
This doesn't disprove the theory of evolution. It just changes the time line.
It's a little more than that since they are rearranging the order in which things evolved... I'm not worried though, they haven't discovered anything yet that they couldn't manipulate their theory to include. 
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 28,163 Likes: 845
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 28,163 Likes: 845 |
Quote:
they haven't discovered anything yet that they couldn't manipulate their theory to include.
You've worded it derogatorily, but that's precisely the nature of a theory.
Theory = "I think, based upon the evidence at hand, that this is what happened."
Browns is the Browns
... there goes Joe Thomas, the best there ever was in this game.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 750
All Pro
|
|
All Pro
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 750 |
Quote:
Quote:
This older skeleton reverses the common wisdom of human evolution
But wait dude, Scientists know everything. Scientists had this all figured out. Remember? God can't exist because scientists said so. Scientists had this whole evolution business proved years ago. - Buncha idiots.
Are you acting the way God would want you to act? What I've been taught in church says no. If you have a convincing argument for running people down because they don't believe the right way, please enlighten me. Otherwise you should probably act the way you know you're supposed to.
Go Irish!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 8,767
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 8,767 |
speaking of timelones. I've always wondered if the Grand Canyon really took millions of years to form. Here's an article about a little canyon being formed in minutes. If it did this in minutes could the canyon have been formed in much less time? Perhaps, forty days and forty nights? http://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/news/artic...-farm-land.html
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,316
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,316 |
So all the people on this chain ripping on Crazyotto think that humans did not evolve from something that we would call "non-human" today?
Just curious....
I'm coming home, I'm coming home, tell the world I'm coming home
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,825 Likes: 516
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,825 Likes: 516 |
Quote:
So all the people on this chain ripping on Crazyotto think that humans did not evolve from something that we would call "non-human" today?
Just curious....
I'm pretty sure I wasn't ripping on crazy. I"m also pretty sure I didn't rip evolution.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 14,248
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 14,248 |
Quote:
That said, one path seeks to discover the truth for itself, regardless of what it may be, and adjust what it thinks the truth is as it discovers more - while the other path is already convinced of their truth (kinda... because so many different flavors believe so many different things) and is offended that you don't believe it as they do and have the audacity to question it and seek the answers for yourself.
Wait ... which side is which?  
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,649 Likes: 95
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,649 Likes: 95 |
Quote:
Like most things, I believe that the real truth will lie somewhere in between, and both sides will end up having equal amounts of correctness to them...it isn't too hard to think of ways that the theories of Creationism and Evolutionism can coexist and help explain holes in each other's story.
My line of thinking is similar to yours. I can see why what I typed would lead you and others to think of me as some sort of religious freak. - But I'm not. I don't read the Bible, I don't go to Church. I stay on the left side of the political spectrum.
I don't like people who believe that they know how God thinks, nor do I like scientists that dismiss miracles as coincidence and feel as if they are smart enough to explain everything. - I think this line of thinking lends itself to arrogance.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 28,163 Likes: 845
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 28,163 Likes: 845 |
Quote:
Quote:
That said, one path seeks to discover the truth for itself, regardless of what it may be, and adjust what it thinks the truth is as it discovers more - while the other path is already convinced of their truth (kinda... because so many different flavors believe so many different things) and is offended that you don't believe it as they do and have the audacity to question it and seek the answers for yourself.
Wait ... which side is which?
Isn't that the beautiful part? 
Browns is the Browns
... there goes Joe Thomas, the best there ever was in this game.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,224
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,224 |
Quote:
Rather than humans evolving from an ancient chimp-like creature, the new find provides evidence that chimps and humans evolved from some long-ago common ancestor — but each evolved and changed separately along the way.
I can't believe someone let that through. We never had any evidence for this, and was just hypothesized. We thought, based on no evidence and was just a guess really, that it was possible for humans to have evolved from a chimp-like ancestor and modern chimps continued along the same line changing only a bit. But, as I've said, there was never any evidence for this! The statement is blatantly wrong, but not just in that.
When populations within a species diverge creating new species over time, both populations continue to evolve and change. So saying we evolved from chimps is a complete misunderstanding of evolution and how it occurs. It's more correct to say that modern chimps and humans evolved from a long-ago common ancestor that may or may not have been more chimp-like in nature, since we don't have any evidence as to what that common ancestor looked like, we really can't say with any certainty. This doesn't change evolutionary theory by any means, but does offer an insight into how far back early hominid ancestors go.
One thing I'd like to point out to all the science-deniers. By using science, people were able to predict that a common ancestor would have occurred at this time period that is similar to humans and other apes, a mixture. Does it say exactly what it would be? How it would look? No. But we knew that there would be something at this time period. So what did the scientists do? They went to a geologist and asked, "Where are exposed rock layers that date to roughly 4.4 million years?" The geologist told them, and the paleontologists went looking at the different sites. Once a suitable site it found, they start digging. This isn't a once in a lifetime occurance of science predicting layers of rock that transitional animals may occur in. Tiktaalik is another example which is a transitional fossil that links earth going tetrapods with lobe-finned fish. Recently, a new dino-bird was described that had rudimentary feathers that dates back to 140 million years, that was found exactly in the layers of rock it was predicted to occur in. We're not finding mammals or reptiles from 400 million years ago, if we did then ya'll could complain about science being wrong. As it is, there are more transitional fossils that demonstrate change over time than any denier would care to admit. There's transitional fossils for rodents to bats (and their echolocation), rodents to whales (and their respiratory system), dinos to birds (and their feathers).
Seriously, what more could you ask for? You cling to this hope that "science has been wrong in the past and is therefore fallible in the future" like it's a life raft. How much evidence will it take to convince you that science makes no prediction about something it can't test, like religion, and therefore isn't a threat to it. Not only that, how much evidence do you need to prove something? Because evolution has the equivalent of mountains on its side.
There are no sacred cows.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,825 Likes: 516
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,825 Likes: 516 |
Quote:
How much evidence will it take to convince you that science makes no prediction about something it can't test, like religion, and therefore isn't a threat to it. Not only that, how much evidence do you need to prove something? Because evolution has the equivalent of mountains on its side.
Wasn't it "tested" that humans came from apes? Now we see that perhaps humans and apes came from something else? How much evidence will it take for you to see the science can only go by what it knows and HYPOTHESIZES?
I'm not saying this "discovery" ruins evolution theory. I AM, however, saying this discovery ruins the "humans came from apes" theory.
You are scientific, and definitely in a science field. You stated "
I can't believe someone let that through. We never had any evidence for this, and was just hypothesized. We thought....."
What are your credentials? Age, job, how many years have you studied this? Thanks.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,224
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,224 |
You want to know who I am? Seriously? If it'll help you believe me ... My name is Pete Zushin and I'm a PhD grad student studying in the Neurobiology program at Boston University. My undergrad was done at the University of Akron from 2001-2005 in biology with a specialization in evolution. My master's work was studying the effects of population and developmental difference in social behavior in prairie voles. Part of my study in this was exploring how similar populations within a species evolved different ranges of social monogamy and how they're evolving farther apart. Look me up if you don't believe me, however, I am more qualified than the person who wrote this and their editor. A pleasure to meet you ABD  Now, onto your argument. Quote:
Wasn't it "tested" that humans came from apes?
There isn't a test. You can't test something that occurred four and a half million years ago. What we can test is the bone structure of our unearthed fossils and compare them other known fossils on either side. From this structure we can discover things like what the organism ate, how their muscles attached to tendons, then to bones. We can sometimes discern fossil evidence of their last meal even, if the fossil is pristine.
Quote:
Now we see that perhaps humans and apes came from something else?
Yeah, we've always known that. Here is a nice example of something that spans the gap from the rodent lineage to the ape and monkey lineages. Everything alive has a common ancestor that can be traced back to some point in the fossil record. That's what evolution predicts, and has been shown to be true through many different lineages. I referenced bats, whales, and birds in my previous post, these examples shine through here also.
Quote:
How much evidence will it take for you to see the science can only go by what it knows and HYPOTHESIZES?
As does the rest of the world. You don't make assumptions based off of things you don't know do you? Scientific theories are backed by colossal amounts of hypotheses that have been proven true time after time. A hypothesis is the answer to a question that is based off of known fact. So yes, science goes by what it can observe and make predictions about. But what does this have to do with evolution?
Quote:
I'm not saying this "discovery" ruins evolution theory.
It is a discovery ABD, it's not like they found their car keys 
Quote:
I AM, however, saying this discovery ruins the "humans came from apes" theory.
I'm sorry, but it doesn't. It barely rearranges much of anything on the timeline of human evolution. It filled in an area that was previously vacant, and showed that human ancestors began walking upright much earlier than thought before. It also tends to shed light on the whole "we started walking to watch for predators on the savannah" idea. Could you tell me why you think this ruins the humans and apes from a similar common ancestor Theory?
There are no sacred cows.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,831
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,831 |
Great info Draftdayz, don't really have anything to add or say, just think it's an interesting find. Thanks for explaining your posts. Very informative.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,224
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,224 |
Welcome and thanks 
There are no sacred cows.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,825 Likes: 516
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,825 Likes: 516 |
Man, you read too much into it. I didn't need your name.
However - tell me what I'm missing here. I know you tried in this last post, but.....
Science has told us humans came from apes/chimps.....We evolved from them.
Now we are being told that, no, that didn't happen. What happened was something "pre ape/chimp" (for an unscientific guy like me) evolved into a human form and a chimp form.
Now, doesn't that go against what science told us? I realize you state that this discovery only fills in an earlier time frame - but can you see my question? If not, I haven't made it clear enough.
It's not that I doubt science, but at the same time I do. No, not all science - just - this "it is 100% true humans came from chimps" science that now seems to be "uh, some other thing evolved into chimps AND humans, and we just learned this". .......is it possible that science DOESN'T know all the answers? And if that is possible, why do have to accept what is presently known?
We, as in common joe's like me. I am not at all attempting to disprove evolution - not at all. But can you take a few steps away from your background and see the question I am asking? (and the freaking disclaimer: no, I am not attacking you or your schooling) in this line of questioning.
I will note, though, that you are still a student, correct? A phd grad student. That was a low blow, I know.
Aside from the last paragraph, my questions stand. Can you understand where I am coming from?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,363
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,363 |
That is some very interesting stuff Draft, I could listen to this kind of thing for hours. I feel like I'm a little smarter now..thanks Not being sarcastic, I this stuff is fascinating.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465
Legend
|
|
OP
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465 |
Quote:
I will note, though, that you are still a student, correct? A phd grad student. That was a low blow, I know.
Then why type it?
Honestly, man, how would you feel if someone asked you or another poster something like, "I will note, though, that you never went to college, correct?" or "I will note, though, that you only received a bachelor's, correct?"
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,224
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,224 |
Quote:
Man, you read too much into it. I didn't need your name.
No, but i gave it to prove that I'm not pulling a CoachB.
Quote:
I will note, though, that you are still a student, correct? A phd grad student. That was a low blow, I know.
I am a student, but I'm also an active researcher on my own with my own ideas. Regardless, I have 7 solid years involved in the study of Biology, specifically evolution at the collegiate level with 4 more to go, this is my job ABD. Take it for what you will, but I'm no amateur at this. Also, I've come to expect low blows I come to these conversations wearing a cup.
Quote:
Science has told us humans came from apes/chimps.....We evolved from them.
Nope. That may be what the media tells the populace, or people express as second or third hand knowledge because it's easier to say it like that and controversy sells stories. Anthropologists, biologists and anyone else involved in evolutionary research has said:
Quote:
What happened was something "pre ape/chimp" (for an unscientific guy like me) evolved into a human form and a chimp form.
You, sir, have just explained evolution from common decent, where two similar organisms share a common ancestor at some point during their evolution. Congrats Whales and dolphins share a common ancestor in the first rodents that went back the rivers and sea. The sparrow and eagle share a common ancestor in archeopteryx, a feather dinosaur that was thought to be able to fly over short distances. Humans, apes and monkeys share a common ancestor with the lemur-like organism from that link in my previous post, Ida. Mammals and birds have a reptile common ancestor. Reptiles, birds and mammals have an amphibian ancestor. Amphibians have a fish ancestor. The thing to keep in mind is that everything present in todays world has been evolving for the same amount of time. Humans and apes have been evolving for the same amount of time, and thus evolved from an distant ancestor that had both ape and human-like characteristics.
Basically, someone fed you bad information my friend
There are no sacred cows.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,224
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,224 |
Welcome and thanks One of my life's goals is to initiate greater public outreach among the scientific community. That's one of the reasons I like these conversations. Science and the people who do it aren't supposed to be scary!
There are no sacred cows.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,825 Likes: 516
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,825 Likes: 516 |
Quote:
Quote:
I will note, though, that you are still a student, correct? A phd grad student. That was a low blow, I know.
Then why type it?
Honestly, man, how would you feel if someone asked you or another poster something like, "I will note, though, that you never went to college, correct?" or "I will note, though, that you only received a bachelor's, correct?"
Because it was a low blow, as I stated. What you don't know is the pm's behind this - from lyuk - according to him, luyk - however his name is spelled - he and draftdayz were giving me crap. In draftdayz' defense, I never got a pm from him, but if luyk was accurate - game on, huh?
Anyway, he can be ticked that I stated that. Wouldn't blame him if he were. If he is, he's a big boy, he can deal with it. He knows much, much more about it than I do, no doubt. But what does he really know? That's my question.
See, when dealing with science, as he himself has said "we can only go by what we think we know, and try to learn more", so no, I don't think his replies are the end all be all of any science discussion. I can learn from him. But, he can also learn from "an ignorant hillbilly" like me, if he cares to.
I asked him some serious, honest questions, and I threw in a low blow if you will. Big deal. Have you read any of attackdawgs posts?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,825 Likes: 516
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,825 Likes: 516 |
Thank you for a decent reply.
Maybe I have been fed bad info - but seeing as I don't study it, I can only go by what I see and read - hopefully you can understand that.
And, I have never said that evolution and creation cannot co -exist.........if you were insinuating that.
What I have said is science doesn't know everything. Just because the best knowledge of today says something, doesn't mean it is the absolute. Thats why people like you continue to study and research.
Put yourself in my shoes, or the common joe's shoes.........(the common joe with a "prove it" attitude, that is)
Do you see where I'm coming from?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465
Legend
|
|
OP
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465 |
Quote:
Put yourself in my shoes, or the common joe's shoes.........(the common joe with a "prove it" attitude, that is)
Prove, schmoove. You just gotta have faith.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,825 Likes: 516
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,825 Likes: 516 |
Quote:
Quote:
Put yourself in my shoes, or the common joe's shoes.........(the common joe with a "prove it" attitude, that is)
Prove, schmoove. You just gotta have faith.
Exactly. Glad to see you're coming around.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,224
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,224 |
Quote:
Thats why people like you continue to study and research.
Exactly. However, there's definitely areas that the amount of evidence for them is immense. Evolution isn't going to be turned over for something else any time soon. Do we know every minute detail? No, and probably never will. That doesn't effect the idea that organisms evolved from a common ancestor and are continuing to evolve presently.
Quote:
Just because the best knowledge of today says something, doesn't mean it is the absolute.
I don't know any practicing scientist who's said otherwise. Some may think we believe that, but it's just not true.
There are no sacred cows.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,831
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,831 |
I don't mean to speak for Draftdayz but I think his point is that while we aren't dealing in absolutes, the facts he presents are the best hypothesis based on what we know of our world. Now does that mean his beliefs are correct? No. But what it means is that the evolution approach is our best guess because it has much more evidence than any other theory. Now, something might come along that completely disproves everything we think we know. That's the whole creation v evolution debate to me, because you can't argue faith no matter what facts are given. But the way I see it, everyone's got their own belief system and should be free to exercise it. Ballpeen's signature has it completely correct: If we had like minds we would never learn. P.S. Thanks to everyone who has added something to this thread. It's been one of the most informative threads I've seen on here in a long, long time.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,825 Likes: 516
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,825 Likes: 516 |
Quote:
I don't mean to speak for Draftdayz but I think his point is that while we aren't dealing in absolutes, the facts he presents are the best hypothesis based on what we know of our world. Now does that mean his beliefs are correct? No. But what it means is that the evolution approach is our best guess because it has much more evidence than any other theory. Now, something might come along that completely disproves everything we think we know. That's the whole creation v evolution debate to me, because you can't argue faith no matter what facts are given. But the way I see it, everyone's got their own belief system and should be free to exercise it. Ballpeen's signature has it completely correct: If we had like minds we would never learn.
P.S. Thanks to everyone who has added something to this thread. It's been one of the most informative threads I've seen on here in a long, long time.
I agree with your post 100%. I am not saying this disproves evolution - not at all. I sure hope no one took it that way.
Draftdayz does this type of thing, not me. All I'm saying is science is not a proven thing, and to a large degree, I believe he would agree with me. Creation? Their is no proof, no tangible proof, for it. Evolution? There is no proof against it - other than we have not seen it in our lifetimes.
I'm curious, nothing more, really. If I have questions, who better on here to ask?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,349
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,349 |
Quote:
[ Evolution? There is no proof against it - other than we have not seen it in our lifetimes.
I wouldnt say we havent. Hell over the past 100 or 200 years havent people gotten taller and bigger? I dont just mean fatter, peoples frames have gotten bigger. Peoples,animals,nature, adapt and evolve,there is little doubt about that. Creatures or nature that dont adapt and evolve dont survive,they become extinct.
Who is to say that isnt all part of gods plan?
KING
You may be in the drivers seat but God is holding the map. #GMSTRONG
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,224
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,224 |
Quote:
All I'm saying is science is not a proven thing, and to a large degree, I believe he would agree with me.
I don't agree with the wording, but i agree with the spirit. There are some things that will be overturned by other scientific findings in the future. However, that doesn't mean that we can just ignore what we have now because it may end up fiddled with in the future. Take Newton's laws of gravity. Was he wrong since Einstein came up with the theory of relativity? No, not really. Newtonian physics is fine for normal distances like a mile or two, it just isn't able to stack up to relativistic distances. Einstein built off of the previous work of Newton and expanded it. To be honest, someone will end up probably doing the same thing again to Einstein's theory in the near future. But does that mean that both men were wrong? Their idea's work for the most part.
There are no sacred cows.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 8,015
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 8,015 |
Quote:
Quote:
Put yourself in my shoes, or the common joe's shoes.........(the common joe with a "prove it" attitude, that is)
Prove, schmoove. You just gotta have faith.
***Gordon, I really didn't think you could be this stOOpid, but you exceeded my expectations. Wussy.
Manziel, see Josh Gordon. Dumbass.***
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,224
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,224 |
Since the advent of the C-Section birthing technique, babies with larger heads are being recorded yearly. It's not speciation by any means, but it's still change
There are no sacred cows.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465
Legend
|
|
OP
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465 |
Quote:
Evolution? There is no proof against it - other than we have not seen it in our lifetimes.
Evolution is all around us. Cities evolve. Football teams evolve. Minds evolve. Societies evolve. Plants evolve. Animals evolve.
But many believe that humans are the exception.
And I've always been baffled by religious folks aversion to evolution...it doesn't necessarily stand against or debunk their cause. The two can co-exist.
But to deny it...is just plain out there. I'm not saying science has it right. In fact, I think they're probably in deep left field in regards to the truth. But to not see that it happened in some form or another, whether by design or chaos?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 27,302 Likes: 638
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 27,302 Likes: 638 |
Quote:
I come to these conversations wearing a cup.
pssst it doesn't go on your head
I AM ALWAYS RIGHT... except when I am wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,224
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,224 |
Quote:
Quote:
I come to these conversations wearing a cup.
pssst it doesn't go on your head
There are no sacred cows.
|
|
|
DawgTalkers.net
Forums DawgTalk Tailgate Forum Major ancestry breakthrough (4.4
million year old hominid found)
|
|
![[Linked Image from i190.photobucket.com]](http://i190.photobucket.com/albums/z33/booger52/phpGGRdhwAM.jpg)
