Human evolution News

Stone tools now dated to 3.3 million years ago

Spread the love

From ScienceDaily:

The discovery is the first evidence that an even earlier group of proto-humans may have had the thinking abilities needed to figure out how to make sharp-edged tools. The stone tools mark “a new beginning to the known archaeological record,” say the authors of a new paper about the discovery, published today in the leading scientific journal Nature.

“The whole site’s surprising, it just rewrites the book on a lot of things that we thought were true,” said geologist Chris Lepre of the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory and Rutgers University, a co-author of the paper who precisely dated the artifacts.

The tools “shed light on an unexpected and previously unknown period of hominin behavior and can tell us a lot about cognitive development in our ancestors that we can’t understand from fossils alone,” said lead author Sonia Harmand, of the Turkana Basin Institute at Stony Brook University and the Universite Paris Ouest Nanterre.

Hominins are a group of species that includes modern humans, Homo sapiens, and our closest evolutionary ancestors. Anthropologists long thought that our relatives in the genus Homo — the line leading directly to Homo sapiens — were the first to craft such stone tools. But researchers have been uncovering tantalizing clues that some other, earlier species of hominin, distant cousins, if you will, might have figured it out. More.

Of course, the unconfronted real story is that human paleo groupings are probably artificial. Class, discuss.

Revolutionary stone tools found in India “much earlier than thought,” 385 kya

Stone tools confirmed from 3.4 mya?

See also: Human evolution, the skinny

Follow UD News at Twitter!

87 Replies to “Stone tools now dated to 3.3 million years ago

  1. 1
    Mung says:

    Primitive aliens. Obviously.

  2. 2
    Zachriel says:

    Mung: Primitive aliens. Obviously.

    No. An unknown designer, with unknown methods, at an unknown place, at an unknown time, for unknown reasons.

  3. 3
    Silver Asiatic says:

    No, an unknown ancestor with unknown origins at an unknown place and an unknown time … for no reason.

  4. 4
    ppolish says:

    Hominins were never “chimp like”. But racist Darwinian beliefs morphed into snarky atheistic beliefs and Monkey Man lives on.

  5. 5
    harry says:

    Why refer to them as “proto-humans”? If they were humanoid and possessed the intelligence to make tools, they possessed that which, more than any other feature, separates humanity from other creatures. Why shouldn’t we assume they could have used a variety of other tools made of materials that would have disintegrated over the course of 3.3 million years?

    The mental picture painted for us by scientists of a brutish humanoid grunting as he sharpens a stone by striking it against another is based on imagination, not evidence. Just because a sharpened stone is all that remains of the artifacts of their time doesn’t mean that is all there was. The article mentions scientists think the area the stone tools were found in was partially wooded at the time. If they lived in log cabins we wouldn’t have any evidence of that now. If intelligent humanoids were around 3.3 million years ago, the picture science paints for us about how they lived remains, for the most part, mere speculation based on the scantiest of evidence.

    If the only tool one has is a hammer all problems start looking like nails. If the only artifacts that remain of humanoids that lived three million years ago are sharpened stones, I suppose those humanoids start looking like brutes barely smart enough to sharpen a stone. But just as all problems aren’t really nails, it is entirely possible such humanoids were far more sophisticated than the brutish humanoid conveyed to us by the mental picture scientists paint for us.

    If humanoids were indeed a special creation of God and from their beginning possessed intelligence vastly superior to other creatures, regardless of how long ago it was that the first humanoids appeared on planet Earth, science, with so many of its a priori assumptions being in actuality mere speculation, will never realize that that was the case. The real evidence — the fossil record — simply isn’t filled with the transitional forms Darwin imagined would eventually be found within it. Instead, what we find for the most part are creatures just appearing on the scene out of nowhere, along with a handful of dubious “transitional forms.” The evidence looks as though there was a series of creative acts on God’s part. Do you suppose that might be the case because that is exactly what happened, including the special creation of the first humanoids?

  6. 6
    Silver Asiatic says:

    we can’t understand [cognitive development] from fossils alone,” said lead author Sonia Harmand,

    It would be interesting to learn why not. Cognitive development is a distinguishing feature between human and supposed proto-human. But we can’t understand that feature from the fossils, which is all we have in most cases.

  7. 7
    harry says:

    The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persist as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils ….
    — Stephen Jay Gould

    Just thought I would cite renowned paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould’s famous remark, to back up the assertions in my previous post about the fossil record.

  8. 8
    goodusername says:

    News,

    Of course, the unconfronted real story is that human paleo groupings are probably artificial, and done to keep human paleontologists in business. Class, discuss.

    Interesting. Since the time period of these tools are around 3.3 million years ago, the groups under discussion are Australopithecines (like Lucy) and Kenyanthropus.

    Does this mean that you are now moving Australopithecines from the “nothing but apes” category to the “fully human” category? 🙂

  9. 9
    ppolish says:

    Australopithecines Goodusername? Any paleontologist suggesting Lucy kin made these tools? Nope?

    Kenyanthropus a better guess I bet. First hominid to wear clothes too I bet. No more nakedness for the first hominids. Clothes are a Religion thing that persists to this day. You’re wearing pants today I presume.

  10. 10
    wd400 says:

    Of course, the unconfronted real story is that human paleo groupings are probably artificial, and done to keep human paleontologists in business.

    H’uh? Do you meant there is such a continuity between fossil species that split them into distinct groups is not possible?

    Or that were all just one big species and H sap was walking around 3 million years ago making tools?

  11. 11
    Mapou says:

    Silver Asiatic @3,

    Nice rejoinder to Zachriel’s typical spew.

  12. 12
    ppolish says:

    Hominids were special from the get go. Using tools and probably not nearly as furry as commonly depicted. Probably just as hairy as a very hairy modern dude/dudette.

    Of course, BBC will spin this discovery as “chimps using tools”.
    http://www.bbc.com/news/scienc.....t-32804177

  13. 13
    ppolish says:

    CNN better grasp than BBC;

    “The discovery suggests there are older human fossils to be discovered”

    “Archaeologists have made a discovery that may mean our school textbooks have to be rewritten.”

    http://www.cnn.com/2015/05/20/.....iscovered/

  14. 14
    rhampton7 says:

    Interesting theological questions: Were Adam and Eve 3 million year old hominids of a different species, or did tool-making hominids predate the first couple?

  15. 15
    ppolish says:

    Rhampton7, find the perpetrators of Original Sin – and you’ll have your Adam & Eve. Cold Case for sure:)

    My feeling is that Original Sin predates using a hammer and anvil. A big anvil fcol – what a find!

  16. 16
    bornagain77 says:

    Funny that Darwinists have no trouble whatsoever making a design inference, (however questionable), when it suits their interests:

    “I have seen some of these artifacts in the flesh, and I am convinced they were fashioned deliberately.”
    Benard Wood

    Erella Hovers finds it “unlikely” that the rocks are the product of natural or random processes, like erosion through “stream activity.”
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....96221.html

    Wow! Apparently making a design inference is easier for these Darwinists than it is for me, because the ‘tools’ certainly don’t look like that much to me personally,,

    — see here for a gallery of images
    http://www.livescience.com/509.....hotos.html

    Color me unimpressed!

    Yet when the evidence for design is overwhelming, (so that even I can see it),,,,

    Structural diversity of bacterial flagellar motors – 2011
    Excerpt: Figure 3 – Manual segmentation of conserved (solid colours) and unconserved (dotted lines) motor components based on visual inspection.
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pm.....figure/f3/

    Electron Microscope Photograph of Flagellum Hook-Basal Body
    http://www.skeptic.com/eskepti.....gure03.jpg

    Bacterial Flagellum: Visualizing the Complete Machine In Situ
    Excerpt: Electron tomography of frozen-hydrated bacteria, combined with single particle averaging, has produced stunning images of the intact bacterial flagellum, revealing features of the rotor, stator and export apparatus.
    http://www.sciencedirect.com/s.....220602286X

    ,,, then all of the sudden Darwinists can’t see the design in the object even though the evidence for design is as bright as day.

    This blatant double standard on the part of Darwinists reminds me of this following quote from neurosurgeon Dr. Egnor. A quote which exposes the hypocrisy of neo-Darwinists whenever they evaluate evidence that contradicts their preferred worldview of atheism:

    Near-Death Experiences: Putting a Darwinist’s Evidentiary Standards to the Test- Michael Egnor October 15, 2012
    Excerpt: The most “parsimonious” explanation — the simplest scientific explanation — is that the experience was real. Tens of millions of people have had such (Near Death) experiences. That is tens of millions of more times than we have observed the origin of species (Or the origin of life, or the origin of a molecular machine), which is never.
    ,,,The materialist reaction, in short, is unscientific and close-minded. NDE’s show fellows like Coyne at their sneering unscientific irrational worst. Somebody finds a crushed fragment of a fossil and it’s earth-shaking evidence. Tens of million of people have life-changing spiritual experiences and it’s all a big yawn.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....65301.html

  17. 17
    goodusername says:

    ppolish,

    Australopithecines Goodusername? Any paleontologist suggesting Lucy kin made these tools? Nope?

    Kenyanthropus a better guess I bet. First hominid to wear clothes too I bet. No more nakedness for the first hominids. Clothes are a Religion thing that persists to this day. You’re wearing pants today I presume.

    Afarensis is listed as a prime suspect, along with K. platyops, and there are paleontologists that have been arguing that afarensis fashioned stone tools for a couple of decades now.

    There was a similar story to this one about 5 years ago:
    http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08......html?_r=0

    It’s probably still a minority position that afarensis used stone tools (although that may now change if this holds up), but not an uncommon one. It’s why some paleontologists call the species “Homo afarensis”. Development of stone tools was supposed to be the defining feature of the Homo genus. So if more finds like this one are made, and with fossils showing who made them, it may mean some renaming.

    Also, A. afarensis and K. platyops are so similar that some believe they should be lumped into the same species. They are so similar that it would be pretty surprising if one could fashion stone tools while the other couldn’t.

  18. 18
    Zachriel says:

    Zachriel: An unknown designer, with unknown methods, at an unknown place, at an unknown time, for unknown reasons.

    Silver Asiatic: No, an unknown ancestor with unknown origins at an unknown place and an unknown time … for no reason.

    The difference between ID and actual science is that actual science tries to answer the questions about who the designer was, how the tools were made, when they were made, where they were made, and the reason they were made. In this case, they conjecture the tools were made by Kenyanthropus or Australopithecus due to physical and temporal proximity, and scientists continue to seek evidence that tie these aspects together.

    Scientists do not point to an unknown designer, with unknown methods, at an unknown place, at an unknown time, for unknown reasons, then call it a day.

  19. 19
    ppolish says:

    They are so similar, Goodusername? I’m no paleontologist -but I did read Wikipedia. Not so similiar is also an option per wiki:

    http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenyanthropus

  20. 20
    Mapou says:

    Zachriel, the weaver of lies and deception:

    The difference between ID and actual science is that actual science tries to answer the questions about who the designer was, how the tools were made, when they were made, where they were made, and the reason they were made. In this case, they conjecture the tools were made by Kenyanthropus or Australopithecus due to physical and temporal proximity, and scientists continue to seek evidence that tie these aspects together.

    Why would an IDist do differently, in your opinion? No, the difference between creationist science and materialist science (not “actual science”) is that the latter has already determined that it all came about by random chance and unknown voodoo; whereas the creationist side has figured out that it could not have come about by random chance but via intelligent design and creation.

    Scientists do not point to an unknown designer, with unknown methods, at an unknown place, at an unknown time, for unknown reasons, then call it a day.

    What a moron. Since when has anybody called it the day? If you usurpers and pretenders weren’t so busy wasting the taxpayer’s money on your crap, we would get some real science done.

  21. 21
    bornagain77 says:

    But, given methodological naturalism, there can be no intelligence behind the supposed ‘tools’ which were, according to one researcher, ‘unlikely’ to have been made by the random processes of wind and erosion. So are you saying that the methodological naturalism that neo-Darwinism is based upon is not science?

    Do You Like SETI? Fine, Then Let’s Dump Methodological Naturalism – Paul Nelson September 24, 2014
    Excerpt: Epistemology — how we know — and ontology — what exists — are both affected by methodological naturalism. If we say, “We cannot know that a mind caused x,” laying down an epistemological boundary defined by MN, then our ontology comprising real causes for x won’t include minds.
    MN entails an ontology in which minds are the consequence of physics, and thus, can only be placeholders for a more detailed causal account in which physics is the only (ultimate) actor. You didn’t write your email to me. Physics did, and informed you of that event after the fact.
    “That’s crazy,” you reply, “I certainly did write my email.” Okay, then — to what does the pronoun “I” in that sentence refer?
    Your personal agency; your mind. Are you supernatural?,,,
    You are certainly an intelligent cause,, and your intelligence does not collapse into physics. (If it does collapse — i.e., can be reduced without explanatory loss — we haven’t the faintest idea how, which amounts to the same thing.) To explain the effects you bring about in the world — such as your email, a real pattern — we must refer to you as a unique agent.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....90071.html

    Moreover, since Darwinian processes have never produced the ‘appearance of design’ in real time (Behe), why is the design inference valid in this instance of questionably shaped rocks and not in the other in extremely integrated and sophisticated biological machines?

  22. 22
    ppolish says:

    Zach, it might be neither Kenyanthropus or Australopithecus. As CNN article suggests, there could very well be a so far undiscovered toolmaker.

  23. 23
    Zachriel says:

    ppolish: it might be neither Kenyanthropus or Australopithecus.

    It was almost certainly some sort of hominin, a type of intelligent flint-knapping ape.

    Mapou: Why would an IDist do differently, in your opinion?

    They would make a fallacious mathematical calculation with exponents, “infer” design, and refuse to answer any specific questions about the artisan or art.

    Mapou: No, the difference between creationist science and materialist science (not “actual science”) is that the latter has already determined that it all came about by random chance and unknown voodoo;

    That is not correct. The anthropologists contend the tools were knapped by a species of hominin about 3.3 million years ago in an area of Kenya that was wooded at the time. They conjecture that they were used to open nuts or tubers.

    Mapou: Since when has anybody called it the day?

    That’s fine. What are the characteristics of the designer of the flagellum? When was it constructed? What mechanism of manufacture was used? And the evidence?

  24. 24
    bornagain77 says:

    Zach states:

    “It was almost certainly some sort of hominin, a type of intelligent flint-knapping ape.”

    Funny how ‘almost certain’ Zach is when leading paleontologists themselves are far less certain about the supposed transition of apes to humans:

    “A number of hominid crania are known from sites in eastern and southern Africa in the 400- to 200-thousand-year range, but none of them looks like a close antecedent of the anatomically distinctive Homo sapiens…Even allowing for the poor record we have of our close extinct kin, Homo sapiens appears as distinctive and unprecedented…there is certainly no evidence to support the notion that we gradually became who we inherently are over an extended period, in either the physical or the intellectual sense.”
    Dr. Ian Tattersall: – paleoanthropologist – emeritus curator of the American Museum of Natural History – (Masters of the Planet, 2012)

    Skull “Rewrites” Story of Human Evolution — Again – Casey Luskin – October 22, 2013
    Excerpt: “There is a big gap in the fossil record,” Zollikofer told NBC News. “I would put a question mark there. Of course it would be nice to say this was the last common ancestor of Neanderthals and us, but we simply don’t know.” –
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....78221.html

    In the following podcasts, Casey Luskin, speaking at the 2014 Science and Human Origins conference, lays out why, with many quotes from leading paleontologist, the fossil evidence doesn’t support the claim that humans evolved from some ape-like precursor.

    2014 – podcast – Casey Luskin – On Human Origins: What the Fossils Tell Us, part 1
    http://www.discovery.org/multi.....s-tell-us/
    podcast – Casey Luskin – On Human Origins: What the Fossils Tell Us, part 2
    http://www.discovery.org/multi.....l-us-pt-2/
    podcast – Casey Luskin – On Human Origins: What the Fossils Tell Us, part 3
    http://www.discovery.org/multi.....l-us-pt-3/
    podcast – Casey Luskin – On Human Origins: What the Fossils Tell Us, part 4
    http://www.discovery.org/multi.....l-us-pt-4/

    The gap in intelligence, also according to leading experts, is even more stark than the gap in the fossil record:

    Evolution of the Genus Homo – Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences – Ian Tattersall, Jeffrey H. Schwartz, May 2009
    Excerpt: “Unusual though Homo sapiens may be morphologically, it is undoubtedly our remarkable cognitive qualities that most strikingly demarcate us from all other extant species. They are certainly what give us our strong subjective sense of being qualitatively different. And they are all ultimately traceable to our symbolic capacity. Human beings alone, it seems, mentally dissect the world into a multitude of discrete symbols, and combine and recombine those symbols in their minds to produce hypotheses of alternative possibilities. When exactly Homo sapiens acquired this unusual ability is the subject of debate.”
    http://www.annualreviews.org/d.....208.100202

    Leading Evolutionary Scientists Admit We Have No Evolutionary Explanation of Human Language – December 19, 2014
    Excerpt: Understanding the evolution of language requires evidence regarding origins and processes that led to change. In the last 40 years, there has been an explosion of research on this problem as well as a sense that considerable progress has been made. We argue instead that the richness of ideas is accompanied by a poverty of evidence, with essentially no explanation of how and why our linguistic computations and representations evolved.,,,
    (Marc Hauser, Charles Yang, Robert Berwick, Ian Tattersall, Michael J. Ryan, Jeffrey Watumull, Noam Chomsky and Richard C. Lewontin, “The mystery of language evolution,” Frontiers in Psychology, Vol 5:401 (May 7, 2014).)
    It’s difficult to imagine much stronger words from a more prestigious collection of experts.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....92141.html

  25. 25
    bornagain77 says:

    Moreover, it is funny to note that Zach wants to know ‘What are the characteristics of the designer of the flagellum?’, when where, etc.. etc… Yet apparently, when its suits neo-Darwinian purposes, neo-Darwinists have no trouble whatsoever telling us what they think God would and would not do, i.e telling us exactly what the ‘characteristics’ of God are (according to their biased presuppositions against God of course):

    Charles Darwin, Theologian: Major New Article on Darwin’s Use of Theology in the Origin of Species – May 2011
    Excerpt: The Origin supplies abundant evidence of theology in action; as Dilley observes:
    I have argued that, in the first edition of the Origin, Darwin drew upon at least the following positiva theological claims in his case for descent with modification (and against special creation):

    1. Human beings are not justified in believing that God creates in ways analogous to the intellectual powers of the human mind.
    2. A God who is free to create as He wishes would create new biological limbs de novo rather than from a common pattern.
    3. A respectable deity would create biological structures in accord with a human conception of the ‘simplest mode’ to accomplish the functions of these structures.
    4. God would only create the minimum structure required for a given part’s function.
    5. God does not provide false empirical information about the origins of organisms.
    6. God impressed the laws of nature on matter.
    7. God directly created the first ‘primordial’ life.
    8. God did not perform miracles within organic history subsequent to the creation of the first life.
    9. A ‘distant’ God is not morally culpable for natural pain and suffering.
    10. The God of special creation, who allegedly performed miracles in organic history, is not plausible given the presence of natural pain and suffering.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....46391.html

    Charles Darwin’s use of theology in the Origin of Species – STEPHEN DILLEY
    Abstract
    This essay examines Darwin’s positiva (or positive) use of theology in the first edition of the Origin of Species in three steps. First, the essay analyses the Origin’s theological language about God’s accessibility, honesty, methods of creating, relationship to natural laws and lack of responsibility for natural suffering; the essay contends that Darwin utilized positiva theology in order to help justify (and inform) descent with modification and to attack special creation. Second, the essay offers critical analysis of this theology, drawing in part on Darwin’s mature ruminations to suggest that, from an epistemic point of view, the Origin’s positiva theology manifests several internal tensions. Finally, the essay reflects on the relative epistemic importance of positiva theology in the Origin’s overall case for evolution. The essay concludes that this theology served as a handmaiden and accomplice to Darwin’s science.
    http://journals.cambridge.org/.....741100032X

    Methodological Naturalism: A Rule That No One Needs or Obeys – Paul Nelson – September 22, 2014
    Excerpt: It is a little-remarked but nonetheless deeply significant irony that evolutionary biology is the most theologically entangled science going. Open a book like Jerry Coyne’s Why Evolution is True (2009) or John Avise’s Inside the Human Genome (2010), and the theology leaps off the page. A wise creator, say Coyne, Avise, and many other evolutionary biologists, would not have made this or that structure; therefore, the structure evolved by undirected processes. Coyne and Avise, like many other evolutionary theorists going back to Darwin himself, make numerous “God-wouldn’t-have-done-it-that-way” arguments, thus predicating their arguments for the creative power of natural selection and random mutation on implicit theological assumptions about the character of God and what such an agent (if He existed) would or would not be likely to do.,,,
    ,,,with respect to one of the most famous texts in 20th-century biology, Theodosius Dobzhansky’s essay “Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution” (1973).
    Although its title is widely cited as an aphorism, the text of Dobzhansky’s essay is rarely read. It is, in fact, a theological treatise. As Dilley (2013, p. 774) observes:
    “Strikingly, all seven of Dobzhansky’s arguments hinge upon claims about God’s nature, actions, purposes, or duties. In fact, without God-talk, the geneticist’s arguments for evolution are logically invalid. In short, theology is essential to Dobzhansky’s arguments.”,,
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....89971.html

    Nothing in biology makes sense except in light of theology? – Dilley S. – 2013
    Abstract
    This essay analyzes Theodosius Dobzhansky’s famous article, “Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution,” in which he presents some of his best arguments for evolution. I contend that all of Dobzhansky’s arguments hinge upon sectarian claims about God’s nature, actions, purposes, or duties. Moreover, Dobzhansky’s theology manifests several tensions, both in the epistemic justification of his theological claims and in their collective coherence. I note that other prominent biologists–such as Mayr, Dawkins, Eldredge, Ayala, de Beer, Futuyma, and Gould–also use theology-laden arguments. I recommend increased analysis of the justification, complexity, and coherence of this theology.
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23890740

  26. 26
    Mapou says:

    Zachriel:

    Mapou: No, the difference between creationist science and materialist science (not “actual science”) is that the latter has already determined that it all came about by random chance and unknown voodoo;

    That is not correct. The anthropologists contend the tools were knapped by a species of hominin about 3.3 million years ago in an area of Kenya that was wooded at the time. They conjecture that they were used to open nuts or tubers.

    In other words, making up crap as you go and still no OOL theory that explains where it all came from.

    Mapou: Since when has anybody called it the day?

    That’s fine. What are the characteristics of the designer of the flagellum? When was it constructed? What mechanism of manufacture was used? And the evidence?

    I can ask you the same kind of questions. Where did the universe come from? Why is it here? Why are there immense numbers of identical particles throughout the universe? How did inert dirt turn into living organisms all by itself? You have no answers other than the usual superstitious, dirt-did-it, Big-Bang hogwash straight out of your asteroid orifices. Man, just give us a break with that crap. It’s getting old. It’s been old for a long time. It’s annoying and pathetic.

  27. 27
    goodusername says:

    ppolish,

    They are so similar, Goodusername? I’m no paleontologist -but I did read Wikipedia. Not so similiar is also an option per wiki:

    http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenyanthropus

    There’s always going to be differences of opinion. It does mention, in the second sentence, that there are those who believe that they are just A. afarensis.

    The Leakeys are notorious super-splitters. I notice that on the right it has the species listed as “Australopithecus platyops”. This probably represents the majority opinion, even though it’s usually called “kenyathropus” for historical reasons.

    Recent finds have suggested that we have been far too eager to split fossils into separate groups. The Dmanisi fossils were a discovery that surprised even the more extreme lumpers.

    It does mention some differences between kenyanthropus and afarensis, but there’s always differences between fossils, even of the same species. Look at all the variety among modern humans.

  28. 28
    ppolish says:

    “It was almost certainly some sort of hominin, a type of intelligent flint-knapping ape”

    A flint-knapping ape haha Zach. Now we have poop-flinging apes. 3.5 millions years. Apes now fling poop. Evoluuuution.

  29. 29
    ppolish says:

    Goodusername, you may think this discovery is a “nothing to see here” yawn discovery. I disagree. No big deal that:)

  30. 30
    goodusername says:

    ppolish,

    Goodusername, you may think this discovery is a “nothing to see here” yawn discovery. I disagree. No big deal that:)

    I’m not sure what I said to give you that indication. I think it’s a very exciting discovery. There had been earlier discoveries of supposed stone tools with australopithecines/kenyanthropus, but, IMO, they were very unconvincing. I was looking at pics of these stone tools however, and they certainly appear to be the real deal. As I mentioned, if this holds up, it may mean a re-drawing of the line for the Homo genus. Perhaps Afarensis and/or kenyathropus will be moved into our genus, or perhaps they will determine that making stone isn’t a good marker for our genus after all, and perhaps move habilis and other more primitive members of our genus into the australopithecine genus.

    Edit: Just realized that you may have been talking about the discovery of kenyathropus. It’s always interesting to find good fossils from that time period in order to get a sense of how they vary, but the fossil is very similar to other austalopithecine fossils.

  31. 31
    tjguy says:

    Evolutionary bias is just dripping from this article! Their interpretation of the find is steeped in it.

    So let’s get the facts straight. 3.3 million years ago or there abouts, some HOMINIDS figured out how to make tools. But it took these people another 3.29 million years to figure out farming?

    Stop and think about that for a minute! Don’t be so gullible as to accept whatever mumbo jumbo they put out there as a new scientific fact!

    This is totally illogical. The facts don’t fit the evolutionary paradigm very well here.

    Quote:
    “Most paleoanthropologists concede that members of Homo (whether neanderthalensis, erectus, habilis or the like) used fire and made weapons, sailed boats, created art and musical instruments, understood semantic communication, and were for all practical purposes just like us before the Cro-Magnon arrived. If they could do all these other things, why didn’t any of them think of planting a crop or riding a horse throughout 1.9 million years?” http://crev.info/2013/07/farmi.....EgQlD.dpuf

    This article did not mention farming, but intelligence is being found further and further back in history, yet the evolutionary story is that farming did not develop until 10,000 years ago. Every time they find discoveries like this, they are surprised. It rewrites the book on what they thought to be true.

    Why were they so far off in their beliefs? Because they are expecting everything to fit their evolutionary view of history.

    So they are forced to believe that these people never thought to develop farming or ride a horse until 10,000 years ago.

    If such an interpretation did not support the evolutionary paradigm, it would be laughed into oblivion!

    Evolution forces them to believe some really wild things sometimes.

  32. 32
    ppolish says:

    Monkey see, monkey do. Apes have been watching humans use tools for 4 million years. And the best a modern ape can do is pound a nut with a rock. Smart ape. Here’s a banana.

  33. 33
    Zachriel says:

    bornagain77 (quoting Ian Tattersall): “A number of hominid crania are known from sites in eastern and southern Africa in the 400- to 200-thousand-year range, but none of them looks like a close antecedent of the anatomically distinctive Homo sapiens…

    From the same book by Ian Tattersall: “the bottom line here is that our ancestors evolved in a period of increasingly unsettled environmental conditions.”

    bornagain77: wants to know ‘What are the characteristics of the designer of the flagellum?’, when where, etc.. etc…

    Did you answer the question somewhere?

    Mapou: making up crap

    Apparently the stone tools are real, and date to about 3.3 million years ago.

    Mapou: as you go and still no OOL theory that explains where it all came from.

    You’re right! No one has a valid theory of abiogenesis. However, it is an area of active scientific interest, e.g. Jack Szostak’s lab.
    http://molbio.mgh.harvard.edu/szostakweb/

    Mapou: Where did the universe come from?

    Cosmologists believe it started about 13.8 billion years ago in a very dense state. How that came about is still a matter of intense scientific investigation.

    Again, you highlight the fundamental difference. Scientists are very interested in the origin of life and of the universe.

    tjguy: 3.3 million years ago or there abouts, some HOMINIDS figured out how to make tools. But it took these people another 3.29 million years to figure out farming?

    Well, settled farming. However, it’s likely that people tended plants long before becoming settled. Certain tribes still live this way. It took a long time before grasses were sufficiently evolved through artificial selection to provide enough sustenance for settled life.

    Also, you do realize that hominins from 3 million years ago had smaller brains than modern humans?

    ppolish: Apes have been watching humans use tools for 4 million years.

    Many other hominid species have gone extinct so that the gap between humans and other apes is rather large. Most surviving non-human hominids live in isolated areas, and of those more than a few are threatened with extinction.

    ppolish: Apes now fling poop.

    Yahoos were a sort of ape. Houyhnhnms were equines.

  34. 34
    Silver Asiatic says:

    Mapou @11 – thanks! I enjoyed your blunt responses to Z also.

  35. 35
    bornagain77 says:

    Zachriel, Tattersall’s area of expertise, paleontology, is where he admits there is a unbridged gap:

    “A number of hominid crania are known from sites in eastern and southern Africa in the 400- to 200-thousand-year range, but none of them looks like a close antecedent of the anatomically distinctive Homo sapiens…Even allowing for the poor record we have of our close extinct kin, Homo sapiens appears as distinctive and unprecedented…there is certainly no evidence to support the notion that we gradually became who we inherently are over an extended period, in either the physical or the intellectual sense.”
    Dr. Ian Tattersall: – paleoanthropologist – emeritus curator of the American Museum of Natural History – (Masters of the Planet, 2012)

    “The record jumps, and all the evidence shows that the record is real: the gaps we see reflect real events in life’s history — not the artifact of a poor fossil record.”
    (Niles Eldredge and Ian Tattersall, The Myths of Human Evolution, p. 59 (NY: Columbia University Press, 1982).)

    as to this claim:

    “the bottom line here is that our ancestors evolved in a period of increasingly unsettled environmental conditions.”

    Despite his claim, the overall fossil record demonstrates remarkable stability over long periods of time despite widely varying environmental factors:

    Read Your References Carefully: Paul McBride’s Prized Citation on Skull-Sizes Supports My Thesis, Not His – Casey Luskin – August 31, 2012
    Excerpt of Conclusion: This has been a long article, but I hope it is instructive in showing how evolutionists deal with the fossil hominin evidence. As we’ve seen, multiple authorities recognize that our genus Homo appears in the fossil record abruptly with a complex suite of characteristics never-before-seen in any hominin. And that suite of characteristics has remained remarkably constant from the time Homo appears until the present day with you, me, and the rest of modern humanity.,,,
    The complex suite of traits associated with our genus Homo appears abruptly, and is distinctly different from the australopithecines which were supposedly our ancestors. There are no transitional fossils linking us to that group.,,,
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....63841.html

    Donald Prothero: In evolution, stasis was general, gradualism rare, and that’s the consensus 40 years on – February 2012
    Excerpt: In four of the biggest climatic-vegetational events of the last 50 million years, the mammals and birds show no noticeable change in response to changing climates. No matter how many presentations I give where I show these data, no one (including myself) has a good explanation yet for such widespread stasis despite the obvious selective pressures of changing climate. Rather than answers, we have more questions—
    Donald Prothero – American paleontologist, geologist, and author who specializes in mammalian paleontology.
    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....ars-later/

    In fact, the environmental transformations do not match supposed evolutionary timelines

    Another Difficulty with Darwinian Accounts of How Human Bipedalism Developed – David Klinghoffer – February 21, 2013
    Excerpt: A Darwinian evolutionary bedtime story tells of how proto-man achieved his upright walking status when the forests of his native East Africa turned to savannas. That was 4 to 6 million years ago, and the theory was that our ancestors stood up in order to be able to look around themselves over the sea of grasslands, which would have been irrelevant in the forests of old.
    A team of researchers led by USC’s Sarah J. Feakins, writing in the journal Geology, detonate that tidy explanation with their finding that the savannas, going back 12 million years, had already been there more than 6 million years when the wonderful transition to bipedalism took place (“Northeast African vegetation change over 12 m.y.”).
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....69411.html

    Moreover, molecular biology gives no indication that such transitions are remotely plausible for unguided neo-Darwinian processes.

    More from Ann Gauger on why humans didn’t happen the way Darwin said – July 2012
    Excerpt: Each of these new features probably required multiple mutations. Getting a feature that requires six neutral mutations is the limit of what bacteria can produce. For primates (e.g., monkeys, apes and humans) the limit is much more severe. Because of much smaller effective population sizes (an estimated ten thousand for humans instead of a billion for bacteria) and longer generation times (fifteen to twenty years per generation for humans vs. a thousand generations per year for bacteria), it would take a very long time for even a single beneficial mutation to appear and become fixed in a human population.
    You don’t have to take my word for it. In 2007, Durrett and Schmidt estimated in the journal Genetics that for a single mutation to occur in a nucleotide-binding site and be fixed in a primate lineage would require a waiting time of six million years. The same authors later estimated it would take 216 million years for the binding site to acquire two mutations, if the first mutation was neutral in its effect.
    Facing Facts
    But six million years is the entire time allotted for the transition from our last common ancestor with chimps to us according to the standard evolutionary timescale. Two hundred and sixteen million years takes us back to the Triassic, when the very first mammals appeared. One or two mutations simply aren’t sufficient to produce the necessary changes— sixteen anatomical features—in the time available. At most, a new binding site might affect the regulation of one or two genes.
    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....rwin-said/

    As well, the genetic sequence data is found to be 70% not 98%

    The Myth of 98% Genetic Similarity (and Chromosome Fusion) between Humans and Chimps – Jeffrey Tomkins PhD. – video
    https://vimeo.com/95287522

    Tomkins conservative 70% analysis
    “One must also keep in mind the fact that the chimpanzee genome assembly is still based largely on the human genomic framework as discussed in detail by author Tomkins in several journal publications (Tomkins, 2011a; Tomkins 2011b). In fact, this current study did not use any of the unanchored chimpanzee sequencing contigs that could not be aligned to the human genome.
    Had these additional segments of DNA been included, similarities would have been lowered even further, although only slightly. Furthermore, human DNA not found in chimp was also not included in the comparison—another factor that would have lowered similarity estimates. While, chimpanzees and humans do share many localized protein-coding regions of very high similarity, there is overall an extreme DNA sequence discontinuity between the two genomes, which defies evolutionary time-scales and dogmatic presuppositions about a common ancestor.”
    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....ent-503178

    Moreover, the dGRNs (developmental Gene Regulatory Networks) between chimps and humans are found to be far more different still than even the protein coding regions are now found to be:

    “Where (chimps and humans) really differ, and they differ by orders of magnitude, is in the genomic architecture outside the protein coding regions. They are vastly, vastly, different.,, The structural, the organization, the regulatory sequences, the hierarchy for how things are organized and used are vastly different between a chimpanzee and a human being in their genomes.”
    Raymond Bohlin (per Richard Sternberg) – 9:29 minute mark of video
    https://vimeo.com/106012299

    Richard Sternberg PhD – podcast – On Human Origins: Is Our Genome Full of Junk DNA? Part 2. (Major Differences in higher level chromosome spatial organization)
    http://www.discovery.org/multi.....-dna-pt-2/

    Moreover, mutations to dGRNs are ‘always catastrophically bad’

    A Listener’s Guide to the Meyer-Marshall Debate: Focus on the Origin of Information Question -Casey Luskin – December 4, 2013
    Excerpt: “There is always an observable consequence if a dGRN (developmental gene regulatory network) subcircuit is interrupted. Since these consequences are always catastrophically bad, flexibility is minimal, and since the subcircuits are all interconnected, the whole network partakes of the quality that there is only one way for things to work. And indeed the embryos of each species develop in only one way.” –
    Eric Davidson
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....79811.html

    Thus, where Darwinists most need plasticity in the genome to be viable as a theory, (i.e. developmental Gene Regulatory Networks), is the place where mutations are found to be ‘always catastrophically bad’. Yet, it is exactly in this area of the genome (i.e. regulatory networks) where substantial, ‘orders of magnitude’, differences are found between even supposedly closely related species.
    Needless to say, this is the exact opposite finding for what Darwinism would have predicted for what should have been found in the genome.
    If Darwinism were a science, instead a faith based belief system for atheists, this finding, by itself, should be enough to falsify neo-Darwinism.

  36. 36
    bornagain77 says:

    Thus, the claim that our species evolved from some ape like ancestor is unsupported both at the molecular level and at the level of the overall fossil record.
    I hold that only severe prejudice, and ample imagination, sees evidence for human evolution where no actual evidence exists (i.e. seeing faces in the clouds).
    At the end of the day, it is found that all Darwinian claims for human evolution rest on imagination, not any solid substantiating evidence:

    “We have all seen the canonical parade of apes, each one becoming more human. We know that, as a depiction of evolution, this line-up is tosh (i.e. nonsense). Yet we cling to it. Ideas of what human evolution ought to have been like still colour our debates.”
    Henry Gee, editor of Nature (478, 6 October 2011, page 34, doi:10.1038/478034a),

    Paleoanthropology
    Excerpt: In regards to the pictures of the supposed ancestors of man featured in science journals and the news media Boyce Rensberger wrote in the journal Science the following regarding their highly speculative nature:
    “Unfortunately, the vast majority of artist’s conceptions are based more on imagination than on evidence. But a handful of expert natural-history artists begin with the fossil bones of a hominid and work from there…. Much of the reconstruction, however, is guesswork. Bones say nothing about the fleshy parts of the nose, lips, or ears (or eyes). Artists must create something between an ape and a human being; the older the specimen is said to be, the more apelike they make it…. Hairiness is a matter of pure conjecture.”
    http://conservapedia.com/Evolu.....thropology

    “National Geographic magazine commissioned four artists to reconstruct a female figure from casts of seven fossil bones thought to be from the same species as skull 1470. One artist drew a creature whose forehead is missing and whose jaws look vaguely like those of a beaked dinosaur. Another artist drew a rather good-looking modern African-American woman with unusually long arms. A third drew a somewhat scrawny female with arms like a gorilla and a face like a Hollywood werewolf. And a fourth drew a figure covered with body hair and climbing a tree, with beady eyes that glare out from under a heavy, gorilla-like brow.”
    “Behind the Scenes,” National Geographic 197 (March, 2000): 140
    picture – these artists “independently” produced the 4 very “different” ancestors you see here
    http://www.omniology.com/JackalopianArtists.html

    Verse and Music:

    Genesis 1:27
    God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.

    Chris Tomlin – The Way I Was Made
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VF5SZWox_JE

  37. 37
    Silver Asiatic says:

    Zach

    The difference between ID and actual science is that actual science tries to answer the questions about who the designer was, how the tools were made, when they were made, where they were made, and the reason they were made.

    ID is a research program within actual science. It works within limits. Evolution, for example, does not try to answer how life began. Marine biology, for example, does not try to answer how human tools were made. So, you might be confused about what ID proposes.

    scientists continue to seek evidence that tie these aspects together.

    ID continues to look at several evidences of design in nature. When that proposal is accepted, the study could move to philosophical or even theological research to determine the nature of the designer. ID continues to look at evidence of design in nature – that’s the limit of its program.

    Scientists do not point to an unknown designer,

    They do point to an unknown designer – otherwise, the designer would be known. They are willing to offer conjectures which could be (and usually are) proven wrong. That’s one difference with ID – usually it does not simply offer speculations that are not supported by evidence.

    … for unknown reasons, then call it a day.

    In evolutionary-materialism, there are no reasons for anything. Reasons and purposes are teleological.

  38. 38
    Zachriel says:

    bornagain77: Despite his claim …

    You cited him as an authority. He says humans evolved.

    Silver Asiatic: ID is a research program within actual science.

    It’s not a research program, but a claim that life was designed by a conscious external agent.

    Silver Asiatic: When that proposal is accepted, the study could move to philosophical or even theological research to determine the nature of the designer.

    Philosophical or theological research? In other words, you admit there’s no scientific evidence. In any case, why wait?

    Dean, to the physics department: “Why do I always have to give you guys so much money, for laboratories and expensive equipment and stuff. Why couldn’t you be like the math. department – all they need is money for pencils, paper and waste-paper baskets. Or even better, like the philosophy department. All they need are pencils and paper.”

    Silver Asiatic: They do point to an unknown designer {of the stone tools} – otherwise, the designer would be known.

    They point to hominins known to be geographically and temporally associated with the tools. These organisms were eukaryotes, metazoa, bilaterian, deuterostoma, chordate, craniate, vertebrate, gnathostome, tetrapod, amniote, mammal, primate, hominid, hominin; with the associated traits.

    Silver Asiatic: That’s one difference with ID – usually it does not simply offer speculations that are not supported by evidence.

    Are you saying the tools were not fashioned by hominins?

  39. 39
    bornagain77 says:

    Zacheriel, he, like all Darwinists, you included, says humans evolved in spite of the evidence that he himself admits is lacking.

    I pointed out that the evidence does not support the claim.

    You, instead of countering the fact that the evidence itself does not support his, or your, claim, trumpeted his belief instead of the evidence.

    Hard evidence could care less about personal beliefs, and the hard evidence itself does not support the atheistic beliefs of neo-Darwinists.

  40. 40
    Silver Asiatic says:

    Zach

    It’s not a research program, but a claim that life was designed by a conscious external agent …

    ID shows that there is scientific evidence of intelligent design in nature. It’s clear to me that you don’t know what ID is.

    You might want to read this:

    http://www.uncommondescent.com/id-defined/

    you admit there’s no scientific evidence

    Your statement is false. That’s a pretty good example of how you frequently make false claims to defend your point of view.

    Are you saying the tools were not fashioned by hominins?

    I’m saying you don’t know the difference between a non-human ancestor of humans and humans – or if such ancestors existed.

  41. 41
    Silver Asiatic says:

    BA77

    You, instead of countering the fact that the evidence itself does not support his, or your, claim, trumpeted his belief instead of the evidence.

    Yes, it’s a faith-based belief for him and evolutionists in general.

    Yet, it is exactly in this area of the genome (i.e. regulatory networks) where substantial, ‘orders of magnitude’, differences are found between even supposedly closely related species.
    Needless to say, this is the exact opposite finding for what Darwinism would have predicted for what should have been found in the genome.
    If Darwinism were a science, instead a faith based belief system for atheists, this finding, by itself, should be enough to falsify neo-Darwinism.

    That’s a good example of the contradictory evidence that is ignored or covered-up. For me, it’s easy to see that there is a personal commitment given to the Darwinian fairy tale.

    Another good example is how the supposed 99% genetic similarity of human and chimp is promoted as proof of human evolution from non-human ancestors.

    When we look at the obvious morphological differences between human and chimp, virtually every part of the body is different. That says nothing about the infinite difference between a conscious, rational being and an animal lacking consciousness and rationality.

    Darwinists don’t want to talk about that. Or they’ll make the absurd claim that all of those differences are explained in the 1% genetic difference. Or, they’ll falsely claim that differences between human and chimp are ‘minor’.

    On that point, we have to conclude that evolutionists do not know what humans are, and they can’t possibly explain the origin of human life.

  42. 42
    ppolish says:

    “The oldest handmade stone tools discovered yet predate any known humans and may have been wielded by an as-yet-unknown species, researchers say.”

    Yes, textbooks need to be rewritten along with assorted Dawkin fictions. But textbooks may want to wait until the “unknown species” is discovered. Dawkins should refrain from updating though. His books will be classic nonsense someday.

    http://m.livescience.com/50908.....umans.html

  43. 43
    bornagain77 says:

    Ahh ha, we have a candidate

    On Assignment: Monkeys Use Stones to Crack Open Nuts
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8B_pYUuE_b4

  44. 44
    mike1962 says:

    Silver Asiatic: Darwinists don’t want to talk about that. Or they’ll make the absurd claim that all of those differences are explained in the 1% genetic difference. Or, they’ll falsely claim that differences between human and chimp are ‘minor’.

    Even granting the 1% difference claim, the fact is the genetic information that is shared is arranged in wildly different order. That matters. A helluva lot.

    If I disassemble a 747 and make a heap of component parts, it is still true that the heap of 747 parts are 100% identical to the parts in a functioning 747. It doesn’t mean much when it comes to function. The heap of parts won’t fly.

    If I take Microsoft Excel and randomly swap 1% of the code with random bytes, Excel will is going to be comparatively non-functional, have severe issues, and probably be completely unusable.

    Whatever the genetic differences are between chimps and humans, they result in radically different outcomes.

  45. 45
    Zachriel says:

    bornagain77: humans evolved in spite of the evidence that he himself admits is lacking.

    That is certainly not our view.

    bornagain77: I pointed out that the evidence does not support the claim.

    A hash of quote-mines is not evidence.

    Silver Asiatic: ID shows that there is scientific evidence of intelligent design in nature.

    That’s what it claims.

    Silver Asiatic: You might want to read this: http://www.uncommondescent.com/id-defined/

    We’re quite familiar with the text. What does “intelligence” mean in the context?

    Silver Asiatic: Your statement is false.

    You said, “When that proposal is accepted, the study could move to philosophical or even theological research to determine the nature of the designer.” Notably, you didn’t say scientific research to determine the nature of the designer.

    Silver Asiatic: I’m saying you don’t know the difference between a non-human ancestor of humans and humans

    You didn’t answer the question. Do you accept that the tools were fashioned by hominins?

  46. 46
    ppolish says:

    Zach, of course the tools were built by hominins. Or space aliens? Why do you ask such an obvious question?

  47. 47
    bornagain77 says:

    Zachriel, you have no evidence, either in the fossil record or in laboratory work spanning the last four decades, to substantiate your atheistic belief that unguided Darwinian processes can create humans.

    “Gradualism is a concept I believe in, not just because of Darwin’s authority, but because my understanding of genetics seems to demand it. Yet Gould and the American Museum people [i.e., Eldredge] are hard to contradict when they say there are no transitional fossils. As a paleontologist myself, I am much occupied with the philosophical problems of identifying ancestral forms in the fossil record. You say that I should at least ‘show a photo of the fossil from which each type of organism was derived.’ I will lay it on the line – there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument.”
    Colin Patterson to Luther Sunderland, April 10, 1979, quoted in Luther .D. Sunderland, Darwin’s Enigma: Fossils and Other Problems, 4th ed. (El Cajon, CA: Master Book Publishers, 1988), 89.

    “The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution”: Break or blunt any functional coded element whose loss would yield a net fitness gain – Michael Behe – December 2010
    Excerpt: In its most recent issue The Quarterly Review of Biology has published a review by myself of laboratory evolution experiments of microbes going back four decades.,,, The gist of the paper is that so far the overwhelming number of adaptive (that is, helpful) mutations seen in laboratory evolution experiments are either loss or modification of function. Of course we had already known that the great majority of mutations that have a visible effect on an organism are deleterious. Now, surprisingly, it seems that even the great majority of helpful mutations degrade the genome to a greater or lesser extent.,,, I dub it “The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution”: Break or blunt any functional coded element whose loss would yield a net fitness gain.
    http://behe.uncommondescent.co.....evolution/

    Shoot, you can’t even provide empirical evidence that unguided Darwinian processes can create a single functional protein, much less do you have any empirical evidence that unguided Darwinian processes can organize trillions upon trillions of protein molecules into a structure that is far, far, more complex than the entire internet combined, i.e. the human brain!:

    Doug Axe Knows His Work Better Than Steve Matheson
    Excerpt: Regardless of how the trials are performed, the answer ends up being at least half of the total number of password possibilities, which is the staggering figure of 10^77 (written out as 100, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000). Armed with this calculation, you should be very confident in your skepticism, because a 1 in 10^77 chance of success is, for all practical purposes, no chance of success. My experimentally based estimate of the rarity of functional proteins produced that same figure, making these likewise apparently beyond the reach of chance.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....35561.html

    Human brain has more switches than all computers on Earth – November 2010
    Excerpt: They found that the brain’s complexity is beyond anything they’d imagined, almost to the point of being beyond belief, says Stephen Smith, a professor of molecular and cellular physiology and senior author of the paper describing the study: …One synapse, by itself, is more like a microprocessor–with both memory-storage and information-processing elements–than a mere on/off switch. In fact, one synapse may contain on the order of 1,000 molecular-scale switches. A single human brain has more switches than all the computers and routers and Internet connections on Earth.
    http://news.cnet.com/8301-2708.....2-247.html

    Component placement optimization in the brain – 1994
    As he comments [106], “To current limits of accuracy … the actual placement appears to be the best of all possible layouts; this constitutes strong evidence of perfect optimization.,, among about 40,000,000 alternative layout orderings, the actual ganglion placement in fact requires the least total connection length.
    http://www.jneurosci.org/conte.....8.abstract

    “Complexity Brake” Defies Evolution – August 8, 2012
    Excerpt: Consider a neuronal synapse — the presynaptic terminal has an estimated 1000 distinct proteins. Fully analyzing their possible interactions would take about 2000 years. Or consider the task of fully characterizing the visual cortex of the mouse — about 2 million neurons. Under the extreme assumption that the neurons in these systems can all interact with each other, analyzing the various combinations will take about 10 million years…, even though it is assumed that the underlying technology speeds up by an order of magnitude each year.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....62961.html

    Neo-Darwinists believing that unguided material processes built that level of unfathomed complexity in a single human brain should be the very definition of insanity that we find in dictionaries!

  48. 48
    Silver Asiatic says:

    Zach

    Notably, you didn’t say scientific research to determine the nature of the designer.

    You might be new to the topic and not familiar with ID. I think I gave you a link to read. You’ll notice there that the ID project does not include research on the nature of the designer. That’s outside of the scope of its area of study.

    I realize that might be difficult to understand, but I think I already gave you several examples that might help.

    Oh yes, you were flatly incorrect to claim that my statement: “When that proposal is accepted, the study could move …” was equivalent to my admitting “there is no scientific evidence”.

    Do you understand what is meant by the phrase “when that [the ID scientific proposal] is accepted”?

  49. 49
    Silver Asiatic says:

    Zach

    Do you accept that the tools were fashioned by hominins?

    Yes, I accept that its likely that they were fashioned by Homininae, which is a vague categorization, but in any case, it remains true that they were fashioned by unknown designers. In the same way, I accept evidence indicating characteristics that must be present in the Intelligent Designer of the universe, but that evidence comes from outside the scope of ID.

  50. 50
    Zachriel says:

    ppolish: of course the tools were built by hominins.

    Sure, by knapping the stones. That means we have a great deal of specific information about the artisans.

    Silver Asiatic: You’ll notice there that the ID project does not include research on the nature of the designer. That’s outside of the scope of its area of study.

    It’s an entailment of the claim concerning an external intelligent agent, and the lack of supporting evidence undermines the claim.

    Silver Asiatic: Do you understand what is meant by the phrase “when that [the ID scientific proposal] is accepted”?

    There’s nothing stopping further research. It doesn’t take universal agreement. That’s how science progresses, by pushing the boundaries, not by making claims then calling it a day.

    Silver Asiatic: I accept that its likely that they were fashioned by Homininae, which is a vague categorization

    It’s hardly vague. It includes everything from how the Krebs cycle generates energy to how the stones were knapped.

  51. 51
    ppolish says:

    “Sure, by knapping the stones. That means we have a great deal of specific information about the artisans.”

    We have specific information about the hominins who assemble the tools for Stanley and Craftsman too. Chinese hominins. Like me, Zach, none of them know what your point is.

  52. 52
    Zachriel says:

    ppolish: We have specific information about the hominins who assemble the tools for Stanley and Craftsman too.

    That’s right, and which is vastly more than ID is willing to venture about the purported designer of biological organisms; an unknown designer, with unknown methods, at an unknown place, at an unknown time, for unknown reasons. See #18.

  53. 53
    ppolish says:

    Biological Design makes Pliocene tool design look so simple. Cmon Zach. And not knowing the face of the designer is irrelevant to knowing design. And even more fundamental – a design can not comprehend its own designer. True for a shaped Pliocene rock, Zach, and true for a biological you.

  54. 54
    Zachriel says:

    ppolish: And not knowing the face of the designer is irrelevant to knowing design.

    Not having even the slightest evidence connecting the supposed artifact to the artisan and the art, having absolutely nothing scientific to say about the artisan and the art, undermines any scientific claim that the object is an artifact.

  55. 55
    ppolish says:

    No evidence sigh. Box of Rocks debating sigh.

    I’m really looking forward to the day an Atheist here at UD posts;
    “All right! All right! There’s Design! I admit it. Freaking mountains of evidence of Design. Guided Designs. Puposeful Designs. Wondrous Awesome Designs. But they’re NATURAL Designs. Not Supernatural.”

    I’m really looking forward to the Natural Design versus Supernatural Design debate.

  56. 56
    ppolish says:

    Ok, so who else besides me thinks that K.platytops deserves its own genus? And that Homo “branched off” of K.platytops and not Australopithecus?

    Heck, maybe K.platytops is the original homo?

    This tool evidence sure points in that direction.

    http://www.mnn.com/earth-matte.....homo-genus

  57. 57
    bornagain77 says:

    Were Paleoanthropologists Too Eager to Detect Design in Ancient “Stone Tools”?
    Casey Luskin May 26, 2015 – video – living apes making simple stone tools
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....96341.html

  58. 58
    Zachriel says:

    bornagain77: Were Paleoanthropologists Too Eager to Detect Design in Ancient “Stone Tools”?

    The tools were found with the flakes from knapping, so there’s clear evidence the stones were intentionally fashioned. The researchers also undertook an experimental program to replicate the process by which the tools were manufactured, supporting the use of both passive hammer and bipolar techniques. See Harmand et al., 3.3-million-year-old stone tools from Lomekwi 3, West Turkana, Kenya, Nature 2015.

  59. 59
    bornagain77 says:

    And, as the video, and pictures, Casey cited indicate, monkeys are the best explanation for the primitive design patterns in the rocks.

    Although the following video is not as good as Casey’s referenced video, here is another video of monkeys using rocks as tools:

    On Assignment: Monkeys Use Stones to Crack Open Nuts
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8B_pYUuE_b4

    Moreover, crows are shown to be more sophisticated in their tool use than monkeys:

    Tool use in the New Caledonian Crow
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lcvbgq2SSyc

    Crows, smarter than you think: John Marzluff at TEDxRainier
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0fiAoqwsc9g

  60. 60
    Zachriel says:

    bornagain77: Monkeys Use Stones to Crack Open Nuts

    Heh. Your previous argument was that they weren’t tools. Now, you’re arguing they are tools, but so what.

    Monkeys use tools, but don’t knap stone tools. However, an exceptional, trained bonobo can. Bonobos diverged from the human line about 4-7 million years ago, so it is consistent with the finding of a tool-producing ‘factory’ about 3.3 million years ago.

  61. 61
    Axel says:

    Simianus Habilis, Zak.

  62. 62
    bornagain77 says:

    of supplemental note: The following experts hold that the appearance of human intelligence was sudden and was not arrived at gradually as Zachriel and other neo-Darwinists would like to imagine:

    Leading Evolutionary Scientists Admit We Have No Evolutionary Explanation of Human Language – December 19, 2014
    Excerpt: Understanding the evolution of language requires evidence regarding origins and processes that led to change. In the last 40 years, there has been an explosion of research on this problem as well as a sense that considerable progress has been made. We argue instead that the richness of ideas is accompanied by a poverty of evidence, with essentially no explanation of how and why our linguistic computations and representations evolved.,,,
    (Marc Hauser, Charles Yang, Robert Berwick, Ian Tattersall, Michael J. Ryan, Jeffrey Watumull, Noam Chomsky and Richard C. Lewontin, “The mystery of language evolution,” Frontiers in Psychology, Vol 5:401 (May 7, 2014).)
    It’s difficult to imagine much stronger words from a more prestigious collection of experts.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....92141.html

    Evolution of the Genus Homo – Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences – Ian Tattersall, Jeffrey H. Schwartz, May 2009
    Excerpt: “Unusual though Homo sapiens may be morphologically, it is undoubtedly our remarkable cognitive qualities that most strikingly demarcate us from all other extant species. They are certainly what give us our strong subjective sense of being qualitatively different. And they are all ultimately traceable to our symbolic capacity. Human beings alone, it seems, mentally dissect the world into a multitude of discrete symbols, and combine and recombine those symbols in their minds to produce hypotheses of alternative possibilities. When exactly Homo sapiens acquired this unusual ability is the subject of debate.”
    http://www.annualreviews.org/d.....208.100202

    Of related interest: Alfred Russel Wallace, co-discoverer of natural selection, held that man’s ability to do math was proof that man had a ‘soul’:

    “Nothing in evolution can account for the soul of man. The difference between man and the other animals is unbridgeable. Mathematics is alone sufficient to prove in man the possession of a faculty unexistent in other creatures. Then you have music and the artistic faculty. No, the soul was a separate creation.”
    Alfred Russel Wallace – An interview by Harold Begbie printed on page four of The Daily Chronicle (London) issues of 3 November and 4 November 1910.

    And indeed there is very good reason to infer that our ability to do mathematics is proof for a ‘soul’. David Berlinski, with his characteristic wit, gets this ‘soul’ point across very clearly:

    An Interview with David Berlinski – Jonathan Witt
    Berlinski: There is no argument against religion that is not also an argument against mathematics. Mathematicians are capable of grasping a world of objects that lies beyond space and time ….
    Interviewer:… Come again(?) …
    Berlinski: No need to come again: I got to where I was going the first time. The number four, after all, did not come into existence at a particular time, and it is not going to go out of existence at another time. It is neither here nor there. Nonetheless we are in some sense able to grasp the number by a faculty of our minds. Mathematical intuition is utterly mysterious. So for that matter is the fact that mathematical objects such as a Lie Group or a differentiable manifold have the power to interact with elementary particles or accelerating forces. But these are precisely the claims that theologians have always made as well – that human beings are capable by an exercise of their devotional abilities to come to some understanding of the deity; and the deity, although beyond space and time, is capable of interacting with material objects.
    http://tofspot.blogspot.com/20.....-here.html

    Of related interest to mathematics being proof of the soul: It is also interesting to note that ‘higher dimensional’ mathematics had to be developed before Einstein could elucidate General Relativity, or even before Quantum Mechanics could be elucidated;

    The Mathematics Of Higher Dimensionality – Gauss and Riemann – video
    https://vimeo.com/98188985

    The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences – Eugene Wigner – 1960
    Excerpt: We now have, in physics, two theories of great power and interest: the theory of quantum phenomena and the theory of relativity.,,, The two theories operate with different mathematical concepts: the four dimensional Riemann space and the infinite dimensional Hilbert space,
    http://www.dartmouth.edu/~matc.....igner.html

    The reason why it is so interesting to find that the foundation of our temporal reality is described by higher dimensional mathematics is that it gives compelling evidence for the Theist’s contention that the universe was created in a ‘top down’ fashion from a higher dimension:

    Dr. Quantum in Flatland – 3D in a 2D world – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BWyTxCsIXE4

    Psalm 113:5-7
    Who is like the LORD our God, Who is enthroned on high, Who humbles Himself to behold The things that are in heaven and in the earth? He raises the poor from the dust And lifts the needy from the ash heap,…

    Also of interest to being ‘made in the image of God’, the three Rs, reading, writing, and arithmetic, i.e. the unique ability to process information inherent to man, are the very first things to be taught to children when they enter elementary school. And yet it is this information processing, i.e. reading, writing, and arithmetic that is found to be foundational to life:

    Signature in the Cell by Stephen Meyer – video clip
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TVkdQhNdzHU

    As well, as if that was not ‘spooky enough’, information, not material, is found to be foundational to physical reality:

    “it from bit” Every “it”— every particle, every field of force, even the space-time continuum itself derives its function, its meaning, its very existence entirely—even if in some contexts indirectly—from the apparatus-elicited answers to yes-or-no questions, binary choices, bits. “It from bit” symbolizes the idea that every item of the physical world has a bottom—a very deep bottom, in most instances, an immaterial source and explanation, that which we call reality arises in the last analysis from the posing of yes-no questions and the registering of equipment—evoked responses, in short all matter and all things physical are information-theoretic in origin and this is a participatory universe.”
    – Princeton University physicist John Wheeler (1911–2008) (Wheeler, John A. (1990), “Information, physics, quantum: The search for links”, in W. Zurek, Complexity, Entropy, and the Physics of Information (Redwood City, California: Addison-Wesley))

    Excerpt: In conclusion, it may very well be said that information is the irreducible kernel from which everything else flows. Thence the question why nature appears quantized is simply a consequence of the fact that information itself is quantized by necessity. It might even be fair to observe that the concept that information is fundamental is very old knowledge of humanity, witness for example the beginning of gospel according to John: “In the beginning was the Word.”
    Anton Zeilinger – Why the Quantum? It from Bit? A Participatory Universe?

    Quantum physics just got less complicated – Dec. 19, 2014
    Excerpt: Patrick Coles, Jedrzej Kaniewski, and Stephanie Wehner,,, found that ‘wave-particle duality’ is simply the quantum ‘uncertainty principle’ in disguise, reducing two mysteries to one.,,,
    “The connection between uncertainty and wave-particle duality comes out very naturally when you consider them as questions about what information you can gain about a system. Our result highlights the power of thinking about physics from the perspective of information,”,,,
    http://phys.org/news/2014-12-q.....cated.html

    It is hard to imagine a more convincing proof that we are made ‘in the image of God’, and that we do indeed have a soul as even Alfred Wallace himself contended, than finding that both the universe and life itself are ‘information theoretic’ in their basis, and that we, of all the creatures on earth, uniquely possess an ability to understand and create information.
    I guess a more convincing evidence could be that God Himself became a man, defeated death on a cross, and then rose from the dead to prove that He was God.
    But who has ever heard of such convincing evidence as that?

    Shroud of Turin – Carbon 14 Test Proven False – video
    https://vimeo.com/126080645

  63. 63
    bornagain77 says:

    Zach claims:

    “(monkeys) don’t knap stone tools”

    and yet:

    Stone-toolproduction&utilization.wmv – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S-Rd5A8qYCs

    Casey Luskin May 26, 2015 – video – living apes making simple stone tools
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....96341.html

  64. 64
    Zachriel says:

    bornagain77: The following experts hold that the appearance of human intelligence was sudden and was not arrived at gradually as Zachriel and other neo-Darwinists would like to imagine

    That’s funny. You post links showing monkeys who can use stone tools, exceptional bonobos who can knap stone tools when taught by humans, and of course, early hominins who knapped stone tools in a systematic manner. That looks like a progression of technical ability.

  65. 65
    daveS says:

    BA77,

    So for that matter is the fact that mathematical objects such as a Lie Group or a differentiable manifold have the power to interact with elementary particles or accelerating forces.

    I’ve seen this quote go by a number of times, and can’t help but think it’s a bizarre thing to say.

    These structures were invented in part to be useful in physical models, so it’s not that surprising that they can be used to predict the behavior of physical systems.

    How can you verify this “interaction”?

    Do ellipses “interact” with the planets ensuring that they move in (approximately) elliptical orbits?

    Does the number e “interact” with atoms in a sample of a radioactive isotope, forcing it to decay exponentially?

  66. 66
    bornagain77 says:

    Zach, only in your imagination is ‘progression’ seen. Unfortunately for you, science does not derive its proof from what you, and other Darwinists, imagine to be true, but it derives its proof from actual empirical evidence. And as leading researchers admitted, in regards to actual empirical evidence you, and other Darwinists, are in poverty towards empirically making your case for the gradual appearance of human intelligence:

    “We argue instead that the richness of ideas is accompanied by a poverty of evidence, with essentially no explanation of how and why our linguistic computations and representations evolved.”

    supplemental notes:

    A scientist looks again at Project Nim – Trying to teach Chimps to talk fails
    Excerpt: “The language didn’t materialize. A human baby starts out mostly imitating, then begins to string words together. Nim didn’t learn. His three-sign combinations – such as ‘eat me eat’ or ‘play me Nim’ – were redundant. He imitated signs to get rewards. I published the negative results in 1979 in the journal Science, which had a chilling effect on the field.”
    http://www.arn.org/blogs/index.....roject_nim

    Young Children Have Grammar and Chimpanzees Don’t – Apr. 10, 2013
    Excerpt: “When you compare what children should say if they follow grammar against what children do say, you find it to almost indistinguishable,” Yang said. “If you simulate the expected diversity when a child is only repeating what adults say, it produces a diversity much lower than what children actually say.”
    As a comparison, Yang applied the same predictive models to the set of Nim Chimpsky’s signed phrases, the only data set of spontaneous animal language usage publicly available. He found further evidence for what many scientists, including Nim’s own trainers, have contended about Nim: that the sequences of signs Nim put together did not follow from rules like those in human language.
    Nim’s signs show significantly lower diversity than what is expected under a systematic grammar and were similar to the level expected with memorization. This suggests that true language learning is — so far — a uniquely human trait, and that it is present very early in development.
    “The idea that children are only imitating adults’ language is very intuitive, so it’s seen a revival over the last few years,” Yang said. “But this is strong statistical evidence in favor of the idea that children actually know a lot about abstract grammar from an early age.”
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/re.....131327.htm

    On the lack of evidence that non-human animals possess anything remotely resembling a theory of mind’ – 2007
    Abstract
    After decades of effort by some of our brightest human and non-human minds, there is still little consensus on whether or not non-human animals understand anything about the unobservable mental states of other animals or even what it would mean for a non-verbal animal to understand the concept of a ‘mental state’. In the present paper, we confront four related and contentious questions head-on: (i) What exactly would it mean for a non-verbal organism to have an ‘understanding’ or a ‘representation’ of another animal’s mental state? (ii) What should (and should not) count as compelling empirical evidence that a non-verbal cognitive agent has a system for understanding or forming representations about mental states in a functionally adaptive manner? (iii) Why have the kind of experimental protocols that are currently in vogue failed to produce compelling evidence that non-human animals possess anything even remotely resembling a theory of mind? (iv) What kind of experiments could, at least in principle, provide compelling evidence for such a system in a non-verbal organism?
    (Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 362, 731-744, doi:10.1098/rstb.2006.2023)
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17264056

    Darwin’s mistake: explaining the discontinuity between human and nonhuman minds. – 2008
    Excerpt: Over the last quarter century, the dominant tendency in comparative cognitive psychology has been to emphasize the similarities between human and nonhuman minds and to downplay the differences as “one of degree and not of kind” (Darwin 1871).,,, To wit, there is a significant discontinuity in the degree to which human and nonhuman animals are able to approximate the higher-order, systematic, relational capabilities of a physical symbol system (PSS) (Newell 1980). We show that this symbolic-relational discontinuity pervades nearly every domain of cognition and runs much deeper than even the spectacular scaffolding provided by language or culture alone can explain,,,
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18479531

    Language study offers new twist on mind-body connection – Feb. 2, 2014
    Excerpt: The results show that speech perception automatically engages the articulatory motor system, but linguistic preferences persist even when the language motor system is disrupted. These findings suggest that, despite their intimate links, the language and motor systems are distinct.
    “Language is designed to optimize motor action, but its knowledge consists of principles that are disembodied and potentially abstract,” the researchers concluded.
    http://medicalxpress.com/news/.....-body.html

    Dogs Succeed While Chimps Fail at Following Finger Pointing: Chimpanzees Have Difficulty Identifying Object of Interest Based On Gestures – Feb. 8, 2012
    Excerpt: The fact that chimpanzees do not understand communicative intentions of others, suggests that this may be a uniquely human form of communication. The dogs however challenge this hypothesis.
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/re.....180251.htm

    Origin of Soulish Animals:
    Excerpt: Bolhuis and Wynne contrast the cognitive capacities of birds and primates.,,, Evidently, certain bird species exhibit greater powers of the mind than do apes.
    http://www.reasons.org/OriginofSoulishAnimals

    Origin of the Mind: Marc Hauser – Scientific American – April 2009
    Excerpt: “Researchers have found some of the building blocks of human cognition in other species. But these building blocks make up only the cement footprint of the skyscraper that is the human mind”,,,
    http://www.wjh.harvard.edu?/~m.....ndSciAm.pd

    etc.. etc..

  67. 67
    Zachriel says:

    bornagain77: only in your imagination is ‘progression’ seen.

    Monkeys use stone tools, but don’t fashion them. Bonobos normally don’t fashion stone tools, but exceptional bonobos can be taught to do so. Early hominins systematically fashioned stone tools. More modern hominins built stone monuments. That’s a progression parallel to the posited evolutionary progression.

  68. 68
    bornagain77 says:

    Simple stone tools to stone monuments?

    Yep, no gargantuan leap in understanding contextual information there.

    Well by golly, I guess ‘exceptional’ bonobos may just beat the Chinese to the moon after all. 🙂

    Do you think bonobos will use humans as test creatures for their rockets?

  69. 69
    Zachriel says:

    bornagain77: Yep, no gargantuan leap in understanding contextual information there.

    You said there was no progression, which is clearly not the case.

  70. 70
    bornagain77 says:

    You are merely imagining a progression in intelligence where there is none. Birds exhibit greater capacity at fashioning simple tools than ‘exceptional’ apes.

    Moreover, your belief in monkeys randomly transitioning into some type of ape/man like creature, i.e. ‘Early hominins’, by unguided material processes, is even more imaginary than your belief that monkeys possess some type of human, symbolic/information, intelligence.

    No where is the unconstrained imagination of Darwinists more blatantly displayed than the infamous ‘lucy’ fossil

    “The australopithecine (Lucy) skull is in fact so overwhelmingly simian (ape-like) as opposed to human that the contrary proposition could be equated to an assertion that black is white.”
    Lord Solly Zuckerman – Chief scientific advisor to British government and leading zoologist

    Lucy Makeover Shouts a Dangerously Deceptive Message About Our Supposed Ancestors
    by Dr. Elizabeth Mitchell on October 5, 2013
    Excerpt: Australopithecus afarensis is extinct. Its bones suggest it was not identical to living apes, but it did have much in common with them. Many have assessed the skeletal pieces of the various afarensis and possible afarensis fossils that have been found. Overall, these skeletal parts reveal an animal well-adapted to arboreal life. Its wrist bones also suggest it was a knuckle-walker. Reconstructions of its pelvis demonstrate its so-called “bipedal” gait was nothing like a human being’s upright gait. In fact, it is only the evolutionary wish to impute a bipedal gait to this animal that marches its fossils upright across the pages of the evolutionary story.
    https://answersingenesis.org/human-evolution/lucy/lucy-makeover-shouts-a-dangerously-deceptive-message-about-our-supposed-ancestors/

    Lucy – The Powersaw Incident – a humorous video showing how biased evolutionists can be with the evidence – 32:08 mark of video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FI4ADhPVpA0&feature=player_detailpage#t=1928

    Here is an anatomically correct reconstruction of Lucy

    Lucy – a correct reconstruction – picture
    https://cdn-assets.answersingenesis.org/img/articles/campaigns/lucy-exhibit.jpg

    Other ‘Lucy’ fossils have been found since the ‘powersaw incident’ that show that Lucy could not have possibly walked upright.

    A Look at Lucy’s Legacy by Dr. David Menton and Dr. Elizabeth Mitchell on June 6, 2012
    Excerpt: Other analyses taking advantage of modern technology, such as those by Christine Berge published in 199425 and 201026 in the Journal of Human Evolution, offer a different reconstruction allowing for a unique sort of locomotion. Berge writes, “The results clearly indicate that australopithecine bipedalism differs from that of humans. (1) The extended lower limb of australopithecines would have lacked stabilization during walking;,,,
    Lucy’s bones show the features used to lock the wrist for secure knuckle-walking seen in modern knuckle-walkers.
    https://answersingenesis.org/human-evolution/lucy/a-look-at-lucys-legacy/

    Lucy, the Knuckle-walking abomination? by Dr. David Menton and Dr. Elizabeth Mitchell on October 24, 2012
    Excerpt: We would submit that the anterior migration of the afarensis foramen magnum occurred not deep in the evolutionary history of humanity but quite possibly sometime after 1992 in the laboratory.
    https://answersingenesis.org/human-evolution/lucy/lucy-the-knuckle-walking-abomination/

    My Pilgrimage to Lucy’s Holy Relics Fails to Inspire Faith in Darwinism
    Excerpt: —“We were sent a cast of the Lucy skeleton, and I was asked to assemble it for display,” remembers Peter Schmid, a paleontologist at the Anthropological Institute in Zurich.,,, “When I started to put [Lucy’s] skeleton together, I expected it to look human,” Schmid continues “Everyone had talked about Lucy as being very modern, very human, so I was surprised by what I saw.”
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....ly_re.html

  71. 71
    Zachriel says:

    bornagain77: Moreover, your belief in monkeys randomly transitioning into some type of ape/man like creature, i.e. ‘Early hominins’, by unguided material processes, is even more imaginary than your belief that monkeys possess some type of human, symbolic/information, intelligence.

    We didn’t discuss how the process occurred, just noted that there is an obvious progression.

  72. 72
    bornagain77 says:

    “We didn’t discuss how the process occurred,”

    The plurality of you never honestly discusses the sheer impossibility of unguided material processes generating the unfathomably complex human brain:

    Human brain has more switches than all computers on Earth – November 2010
    Excerpt: They found that the brain’s complexity is beyond anything they’d imagined, almost to the point of being beyond belief, says Stephen Smith, a professor of molecular and cellular physiology and senior author of the paper describing the study: …One synapse, by itself, is more like a microprocessor–with both memory-storage and information-processing elements–than a mere on/off switch. In fact, one synapse may contain on the order of 1,000 molecular-scale switches. A single human brain has more switches than all the computers and routers and Internet connections on Earth.
    http://news.cnet.com/8301-2708.....2-247.html

    as to:

    “there is an obvious progression”

    Only in your imagination!

    Simple tool use is widespread

    Octopus tool use
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Mgv_sm-_dY
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hlh0cS2tf24

  73. 73
    Zachriel says:

    bornagain77: The plurality of you never honestly discusses the sheer impossibility of unguided material processes generating the unfathomably complex human brain

    Ignoring the point doesn’t make it go away. By the way, the bonobo brain is also ‘unfathomably’ complex.

  74. 74
    Zachriel says:

    bornagain77: Human brain has more switches than all computers on Earth

    Bonobo brain has more switches than all computers on Earth

  75. 75
    bornagain77 says:

    “Bonobo brain has more switches than all computers on Earth”

    And yet only one of us maintains that unguided material processes can create such unfathomed complexity.

    To quote you:

    “Ignoring the point doesn’t make it go away.”

    Moreover, the integrated complexity of even the ‘simplest’ cell doesn’t get any easier for Darwinists to ignore the extreme sophistication of:

    To Model the Simplest Microbe in the World, You Need 128 Computers – July 2012
    Excerpt: Mycoplasma genitalium has one of the smallest genomes of any free-living organism in the world, clocking in at a mere 525 genes. That’s a fraction of the size of even another bacterium like E. coli, which has 4,288 genes.,,,
    The bioengineers, led by Stanford’s Markus Covert, succeeded in modeling the bacterium, and published their work last week in the journal Cell. What’s fascinating is how much horsepower they needed to partially simulate this simple organism. It took a cluster of 128 computers running for 9 to 10 hours to actually generate the data on the 25 categories of molecules that are involved in the cell’s lifecycle processes.,,,
    ,,the depth and breadth of cellular complexity has turned out to be nearly unbelievable, and difficult to manage, even given Moore’s Law. The M. genitalium model required 28 subsystems to be individually modeled and integrated, and many critics of the work have been complaining on Twitter that’s only a fraction of what will eventually be required to consider the simulation realistic.,,,
    http://www.theatlantic.com/tec.....rs/260198/

    “To grasp the reality of life as it has been revealed by molecular biology, we must magnify a cell a thousand million times until it is twenty kilometres in diameter and resembles a giant airship large enough to cover a great city like London or New York. What we would then see would be an object of unparalleled complexity and adaptive design. On the surface of the cell we would see millions of openings, like the portholes of a vast space ship, opening and closing to allow a continual stream of materials to flow in and out. If we were to enter one of these openings with find ourselves in a world of supreme technology and bewildering complexity. We would see endless highly organized corridors and conduits branching in every direction away from the perimeter of the cell, some leading to the central memory bank in the nucleus and others to assembly plants and processing units. The nucleus of itself would be a vast spherical chamber more than a kilometer in diameter, resembling a geodesic dome inside of which we would see, all neatly stacked together in ordered arrays, the miles of coiled chains of the DNA molecules. A huge range of products and raw materials would shuttle along all the manifold conduits in a highly ordered fashion to and from all the various assembly plants in the outer regions of the cell.
    We would wonder at the level of control implicit in the movement of so many objects down so many seemingly endless conduits, all in perfect unison. We would see all around us, in every direction we looked, all sorts of robot-like machines. We would notice that the simplest of the functional components of the cell, the protein molecules, were astonishingly, complex pieces of molecular machinery, each one consisting of about three thousand atoms arranged in highly organized 3-D spatial conformation. We would wonder even more as we watched the strangely purposeful activities of these weird molecular machines, particularly when we realized that, despite all our accumulated knowledge of physics and chemistry, the task of designing one such molecular machine – that is one single functional protein molecule – would be completely beyond our capacity at present and will probably not be achieved until at least the beginning of the next century. Yet the life of the cell depends on the integrated activities of thousands, certainly tens, and probably hundreds of thousands of different protein molecules.
    We would see that nearly every feature of our own advanced machines had its analogue in the cell: artificial languages and their decoding systems, memory banks for information storage and retrieval, elegant control systems regulating the automated assembly of parts and components, error fail-safe and proof-reading devices utilized for quality control, assembly processes involving the principle of prefabrication and modular construction. In fact, so deep would be the feeling of deja-vu, so persuasive the analogy, that much of the terminology we would use to describe this fascinating molecular reality would be borrowed from the world of late twentieth-century technology.
    What we would be witnessing would be an object resembling an immense automated factory, a factory larger than a city and carrying out almost as many unique functions as all the manufacturing activities of man on earth. However, it would be a factory which would have one capacity not equalled in any of our own most advanced machines, for it would be capable of replicating its entire structure within a matter of a few hours. To witness such an act at a magnification of one thousand million times would be an awe-inspiring spectacle.”
    Michael Denton PhD., Evolution: A Theory In Crisis, pg.328
    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....aturalism/

  76. 76
    Zachriel says:

    bornagain77: And yet only one of us maintains that unguided material processes can create such unfathomed complexity.

    Your position is that there is a “gargantuan leap”, and for evidence pointed to the fact the human brain has more switches than all computers on Earth. Yet, a monkey brain has more switches than all computers on Earth.

    In addition, as the evidence you yourself provided, we do see a progression in tool-capabilities in the primate line leading to humans.

  77. 77
    bornagain77 says:

    “Yet, a monkey brain has more switches than all computers on Earth.”

    so does dolphin brain which is bigger than the human brain,,

    side by side picture – dolphin brain compared to human brain
    https://animalconsciousnessconferenceharvard.files.wordpress.com/2014/09/dolphin-brain1.png?w=451

    therefore, using your Darwinian logic, the dolphin brain must have come from the human brain which came from the monkey brain. All completely by unguided material processes of course.

    as to:

    “as the evidence you yourself provided, we do see a progression in tool-capabilities in the primate line leading to humans.”

    The evidence that Casey Luskin provided, and I referenced, shows that monkeys are capable of making simple stone tools by flaking, similar to those that were discovered, thus contradicting the claim that some hypothetical, (i.e. imaginary), ape-man species must have made the simple stone tools.

    Only in your imagination is there a progression from simple tools that some ‘exceptional’ ape made to the skyscraper that is represented by human intelligence.

    Moreover, leading experts in the field trying to figure out where and how human intelligence evolved disagree with your imagination that there is a progression from animal intelligence to human intelligence.

    Perhaps you should write those experts, since they believe in Darwinism anyway, and tell them of your conclusion that there is a progression instead of arguing on a blog with someone who considers you a intellectually dishonest liar?

    Leading Evolutionary Scientists Admit We Have No Evolutionary Explanation of Human Language – December 19, 2014
    Excerpt: Understanding the evolution of language requires evidence regarding origins and processes that led to change. In the last 40 years, there has been an explosion of research on this problem as well as a sense that considerable progress has been made. We argue instead that the richness of ideas is accompanied by a poverty of evidence, with essentially no explanation of how and why our linguistic computations and representations evolved.,,,
    (Marc Hauser, Charles Yang, Robert Berwick, Ian Tattersall, Michael J. Ryan, Jeffrey Watumull, Noam Chomsky and Richard C. Lewontin, “The mystery of language evolution,” Frontiers in Psychology, Vol 5:401 (May 7, 2014).)
    It’s difficult to imagine much stronger words from a more prestigious collection of experts.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....92141.html

    A scientist looks again at Project Nim – Trying to teach Chimps to talk fails
    Excerpt: “The language didn’t materialize. A human baby starts out mostly imitating, then begins to string words together. Nim didn’t learn. His three-sign combinations – such as ‘eat me eat’ or ‘play me Nim’ – were redundant. He imitated signs to get rewards. I published the negative results in 1979 in the journal Science, which had a chilling effect on the field.”
    http://www.arn.org/blogs/index.....roject_nim

    Darwin’s mistake: explaining the discontinuity between human and nonhuman minds. – 2008
    Excerpt: Over the last quarter century, the dominant tendency in comparative cognitive psychology has been to emphasize the similarities between human and nonhuman minds and to downplay the differences as “one of degree and not of kind” (Darwin 1871).,,, To wit, there is a significant discontinuity in the degree to which human and nonhuman animals are able to approximate the higher-order, systematic, relational capabilities of a physical symbol system (PSS) (Newell 1980). We show that this symbolic-relational discontinuity pervades nearly every domain of cognition and runs much deeper than even the spectacular scaffolding provided by language or culture alone can explain,,,
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18479531

  78. 78
    Zachriel says:

    bornagain77: therefore, using your Darwinian logic, the dolphin brain must have come from the human brain which came from the monkey brain.

    Dolphins nest with cetaceans, not primates.

    bornagain77: The evidence that Casey Luskin provided, and I referenced, shows that monkeys are capable of making simple stone tools by flaking

    Did we miss the reference? We saw a video of bonobos knapping stone tools only after being taught by humans, but not monkeys.

  79. 79
    bornagain77 says:

    Zachriel saying something nests within a group does not scientifically establish, as much as you may imagine it to be so, that one species can evolve into another species within that arbitrary grouping. To prove that one kind of species can evolve into a fundamentally different kind of species within the same overarching group, scientifically, you need empirical evidence. And that is where your poverty is exposed yet again.

    You simply have no empirical evidence that it is possible to change one kind of species into another kind of species by unguided material processes (or even by guided material processes). Shoot, you cannot even provide empirical evidence that it is possible to change one protein of one function into a similar protein of a different function by unguided material processes if the change includes more than 6 neutral mutations:

    More from Ann Gauger on why humans didn’t happen the way Darwin said – July 2012
    Excerpt: Each of these new features probably required multiple mutations. Getting a feature that requires six neutral mutations is the limit of what bacteria can produce. For primates (e.g., monkeys, apes and humans) the limit is much more severe. Because of much smaller effective population sizes (an estimated ten thousand for humans instead of a billion for bacteria) and longer generation times (fifteen to twenty years per generation for humans vs. a thousand generations per year for bacteria), it would take a very long time for even a single beneficial mutation to appear and become fixed in a human population.
    You don’t have to take my word for it. In 2007, Durrett and Schmidt estimated in the journal Genetics that for a single mutation to occur in a nucleotide-binding site and be fixed in a primate lineage would require a waiting time of six million years. The same authors later estimated it would take 216 million years for the binding site to acquire two mutations, if the first mutation was neutral in its effect.
    Facing Facts
    But six million years is the entire time allotted for the transition from our last common ancestor with chimps to us according to the standard evolutionary timescale. Two hundred and sixteen million years takes us back to the Triassic, when the very first mammals appeared. One or two mutations simply aren’t sufficient to produce the necessary changes,, in the time available. At most, a new binding site might affect the regulation of one or two genes.
    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....rwin-said/

    Science & Human Origins: Interview With Dr. Douglas Axe (podcast on the strict limits found for changing proteins to other very similar proteins) – July 2012
    http://intelligentdesign.podom.....3_53-07_00

    The Real Barrier to Unguided Human Evolution – Ann Gauger – April 25, 2012
    Excerpt: Their results? They calculated it would take six million years for a single base change to match the target and spread throughout the population, and 216 million years to get both base changes necessary to complete the eight base binding site. Note that the entire time span for our evolution from the last common ancestor with chimps is estimated to be about six million years. Time enough for one mutation to occur and be fixed, by their account.
    To be sure, they did say that since there are some 20,000 genes that could be evolving simultaneously, the problem is not impossible. But they overlooked this point. Mutations occur at random and most of the time independently, but their effects are not independent. (Random) Mutations that benefit one trait (are shown to) inhibit another (Negative Epistasis; Lenski e-coli after 50,000 generations).
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....58951.html

    Zach, For you to pretend that you have a viable mechanism in neo-Darwinism to explain the origin of humans is beyond ludicrous. And is a prime example of how dishonest you are personally willing to be to the scientific evidence at hand to protect your a priori atheistic bias.

    Well, regardless of how much you wish that there was no rhyme of reason for your existence, the evidence itself states that you are fearfully and wonderfully made. Moreover, there is even strong evidence that you are made in the image of God.

    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....ent-566517

    Most people would consider being made in the image of God to be a very good thing, instead of fighting it tooth and nail as you do, (even severely twisting the evidence to try to force it to fit your desired conclusion, instead of dealing with the evidence forthrightly).

  80. 80
    Zachriel says:

    bornagain77: Zachriel saying something nests within a group does not scientifically establish, as much as you may imagine it to be so, that one species can evolve into another species within that arbitrary grouping.

    The grouping is not arbitrary, but based on objectively observable traits. The nested hierarchy is consistent with branching descent.

    In any case, that wasn’t the issue, but whether there was a progression in tool utilization among primates. That you change the subject when pressed suggests the weakness of your position.

  81. 81
    bornagain77 says:

    Zachriel, whatever, I rest my case.

    I am more than satisfied that the unbiased reader can see that you have no evidence to support your case, but only the usual bluff and bluster.

  82. 82
    Timaeus says:

    Zachriel wrote:

    “Not having even the slightest evidence connecting the supposed artifact to the artisan and the art, having absolutely nothing scientific to say about the artisan and the art, undermines any scientific claim that the object is an artifact.”

    I wonder. So if we found an alarm clock on one of the moons of Neptune, we could not infer that it was designed, even though we could not answer the who, how, when, etc.? The scientist who discovered the alarm clock would be powerless to say that the clock was the product of design rather than chance or natural laws? He would be duty-bound to spend his research life trying to explain away the existence of the clock in terms of random associations of metals?

    If you discovered such a clock, what would your reaction be? You claim to have great knowledge of science (though I’ve yet to see you demonstrate any knowledge in any field of science that an average reader of Scientific American couldn’t quickly acquire), so tell us how a scientist would approach it.

    As far as I can tell, most opponents of ID think that a scientist would say, and should say: “Given infinite universes, there is bound to be a planet somewhere where a clock comes into existence without any design or designer.” Is that the “scientific” explanation of why the clock is there?

    Do you think that if Isaac Newton or Robert Boyle found a clock on Neptune’s moon, they would explain it by design, or by infinite universes?

  83. 83
    Zachriel says:

    Timaeus: You claim to have great knowledge of science

    We’ve never made such a claim.

    Timaeus: So if we found an alarm clock on one of the moons of Neptune, we could not infer that it was designed, even though we could not answer the who, how, when, etc.?

    As you say it strongly resembles a human artifact, that would suggest a human or human-like designer. And, indeed, we would then begin a search for the designer, including other artifacts, evidence of manufacture, habitation, etc; so unlike ID.

  84. 84
    Mung says:

    Zachriel: As you say it strongly resembles a human artifact, that would suggest a human or human-like designer.

    Yes. We would infer design. And then look for additional artifacts that also indicate design [how would we know?]. Then maybe even look for an intelligent designer.

  85. 85
    Zachriel says:

    Mung: We would infer design.

    Not some nebulous design, but a human or human-like cause.

    Mung: Then maybe even look for an intelligent designer.

    Not some nebulous “intelligent designer”, but a human-like artisan. We would look for footprints; so unlike ID.

  86. 86
    velikovskys says:

    Mung:
    Yes. We would infer design. And then look for additional artifacts that also indicate design

    True, why would we do that? To provide more data in order to answer the questions how, who , when and why. Questions which ID eschews.

  87. 87
    Mung says:

    Zachriel, how does one infer “nebulous design”?

Leave a Reply