Stone tools now dated to 3.3 million years ago

_{Denyse O'Leary

May 21, 2015

Human evolution, News}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

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!

Comments

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.goodusername_{May 21, 2015
May
05
May
21
21
2015
05:53 PM
5
05
53
PM
PDT}

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.Mapou_{May 21, 2015
May
05
May
21
21
2015
05:18 PM
5
05
18
PM
PDT}

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/2011/05/charles_darwin_theologian_majo046391.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/action/displayAbstract;jsessionid=376799F09F9D3CC8C2E7500BACBFC75F.journals?aid=8499239&fileId=S000708741100032X 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/2014/09/methodological_1089971.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
bornagain77_{May 21, 2015
May
05
May
21
21
2015
05:03 PM
5
05
03
PM
PDT}

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/2013/10/skull_rewrites_078221.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/multimedia/audio/2014/12/on-human-origins-what-the-fossils-tell-us/ podcast - Casey Luskin - On Human Origins: What the Fossils Tell Us, part 2 http://www.discovery.org/multimedia/audio/2014/12/on-human-origins-what-the-fossils-tell-us-pt-2/ podcast - Casey Luskin - On Human Origins: What the Fossils Tell Us, part 3 http://www.discovery.org/multimedia/audio/2014/12/on-human-origins-what-the-fossils-tell-us-pt-3/ podcast - Casey Luskin - On Human Origins: What the Fossils Tell Us, part 4 http://www.discovery.org/multimedia/audio/2014/12/on-human-origins-what-the-fossils-tell-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/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev.earth.031208.100202 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/2014/12/leading_evoluti092141.html
bornagain77_{May 21, 2015
May
05
May
21
21
2015
05:01 PM
5
05
01
PM
PDT}

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?Zachriel_{May 21, 2015
May
05
May
21
21
2015
03:52 PM
3
03
52
PM
PDT}

Zach, it might be neither Kenyanthropus or Australopithecus. As CNN article suggests, there could very well be a so far undiscovered toolmaker.ppolish_{May 21, 2015
May
05
May
21
21
2015
03:26 PM
3
03
26
PM
PDT}

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/2014/09/do_you_like_set090071.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?bornagain77_{May 21, 2015
May
05
May
21
21
2015
03:23 PM
3
03
23
PM
PDT}

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.Mapou_{May 21, 2015
May
05
May
21
21
2015
03:21 PM
3
03
21
PM
PDT}

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/Kenyanthropusppolish_{May 21, 2015
May
05
May
21
21
2015
02:51 PM
2
02
51
PM
PDT}

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.Zachriel_{May 21, 2015
May
05
May
21
21
2015
02:49 PM
2
02
49
PM
PDT}

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/2010/08/12/science/12tools.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.goodusername_{May 21, 2015
May
05
May
21
21
2015
02:36 PM
2
02
36
PM
PDT}

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/2015/05/stone_tools_33_096221.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/50907-oldest-stone-tools-photos.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/pmc/articles/PMC3160247/figure/f3/ Electron Microscope Photograph of Flagellum Hook-Basal Body http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/08-08-20images/figure03.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/science/article/pii/S096098220602286X
,,, 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/2012/10/near_death_expe_1065301.html
bornagain77_{May 21, 2015
May
05
May
21
21
2015
02:28 PM
2
02
28
PM
PDT}

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!ppolish_{May 21, 2015
May
05
May
21
21
2015
02:00 PM
2
02
00
PM
PDT}

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?rhampton7_{May 21, 2015
May
05
May
21
21
2015
01:53 PM
1
01
53
PM
PDT}

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/africa/kenya-oldest-stone-tools-discovered/ppolish_{May 21, 2015
May
05
May
21
21
2015
01:45 PM
1
01
45
PM
PDT}

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/science-environment-32804177ppolish_{May 21, 2015
May
05
May
21
21
2015
12:46 PM
12
12
46
PM
PDT}

Silver Asiatic @3, Nice rejoinder to Zachriel's typical spew.Mapou_{May 21, 2015
May
05
May
21
21
2015
11:40 AM
11
11
40
AM
PDT}

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?wd400_{May 21, 2015
May
05
May
21
21
2015
09:49 AM
9
09
49
AM
PDT}

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.ppolish_{May 21, 2015
May
05
May
21
21
2015
09:43 AM
9
09
43
AM
PDT}

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? :-)goodusername_{May 21, 2015
May
05
May
21
21
2015
09:07 AM
9
09
07
AM
PDT}

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.harry_{May 21, 2015
May
05
May
21
21
2015
08:54 AM
8
08
54
AM
PDT}

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.Silver Asiatic_{May 21, 2015
May
05
May
21
21
2015
08:32 AM
8
08
32
AM
PDT}

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?harry_{May 21, 2015
May
05
May
21
21
2015
08:13 AM
8
08
13
AM
PDT}

Hominins were never "chimp like". But racist Darwinian beliefs morphed into snarky atheistic beliefs and Monkey Man lives on.ppolish_{May 21, 2015
May
05
May
21
21
2015
08:05 AM
8
08
05
AM
PDT}

No, an unknown ancestor with unknown origins at an unknown place and an unknown time ... for no reason.Silver Asiatic_{May 21, 2015
May
05
May
21
21
2015
07:59 AM
7
07
59
AM
PDT}

Mung: Primitive aliens. Obviously. No. An unknown designer, with unknown methods, at an unknown place, at an unknown time, for unknown reasons.Zachriel_{May 21, 2015
May
05
May
21
21
2015
07:17 AM
7
07
17
AM
PDT}

Primitive aliens. Obviously.Mung_{May 21, 2015
May
05
May
21
21
2015
06:57 AM
6
06
57
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply