Recent fossil find a “Cambrian explosion” for humans?

_{Denyse O'Leary

March 5, 2015

Human evolution, Intelligent Design}

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

Further to Oldest human fossil found, 400k years “earlier than previously thought,” neuroscientist David A. DeWitt writes to say,

That is a real problem since it means that humans overlapped with australopithcines including especially sediba which is a mere 2 million years old.

Humans dated 2.8 million years ago? Sophisticated tools used by H. erectus? Neanderthal genes in modern humans? Range of variation in Dmanisi overlapping H. erectus to modern humans? A. sediba is a mixture of Homo and Australopithecine remains in South Africa?

What we essentially have is a Cambrian explosion type phenomenon for human origins.

Readers?

See also:

The ridiculous level of uncertainty in the field of human evolution DeWitt: “Look at how messed up this field is. Genetic evidence supports Neanderthals and modern humans interbred. The Dmanisi skulls show such variation as to incorporate all of the various Homo specimens.”

History of man unravels in “huge fraud”

and

Contemplating Bill Nye’s skulls slide “I can only conclude that the sole purpose of showing such a slide was to confuse and obfuscate, not educate.”

But wait! It’s not messed up as long as hundreds of pop science writers refrain from wondering.

Also: What we know (and don’t) about human evolution, s synopsis

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Comments

Piotr, Until you produce a mechanism capable of getting beyond populations of prokaryotes, you don't have anything to discuss.Joe_{March 7, 2015
March
03
Mar
7
07
2015
06:07 AM
6
06
07
AM
PDT}

tjguy: Experimentation is limited to the few bones we have. Who in their right mind really thinks that the current interpretation of the data is accurate? The Relativity of Wrong http://chem.tufts.edu/answersinscience/relativityofwrong.htmZachriel_{March 7, 2015
March
03
Mar
7
07
2015
05:51 AM
5
05
51
AM
PDT}

BA77, Until you agree to focus on the topic of the discussion, I'll just scroll over your spam.Piotr_{March 7, 2015
March
03
Mar
7
07
2015
05:47 AM
5
05
47
AM
PDT}

Piotr at 47, your ad hominem aside for a moment, please tell me exactly how is it possible for me to 'choose' to believe the most rational position if your materialistic worldview were actually true?
Sam Harris's Free Will: The Medial Pre-Frontal Cortex Did It - Martin Cothran - November 9, 2012 Excerpt: There is something ironic about the position of thinkers like Harris on issues like this: they claim that their position is the result of the irresistible necessity of logic (in fact, they pride themselves on their logic). Their belief is the consequent, in a ground/consequent relation between their evidence and their conclusion. But their very stated position is that any mental state -- including their position on this issue -- is the effect of a physical, not logical cause. By their own logic, it isn't logic that demands their assent to the claim that free will is an illusion, but the prior chemical state of their brains. The only condition under which we could possibly find their argument convincing is if they are not true. The claim that free will is an illusion requires the possibility that minds have the freedom to assent to a logical argument, a freedom denied by the claim itself. It is an assent that must, in order to remain logical and not physiological, presume a perspective outside the physical order. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/11/sam_harriss_fre066221.html
along that line, how is the following experiment even possible if materialism were true?
Quantum physics mimics spooky action into the past – April 23, 2012 Excerpt: The authors experimentally realized a “Gedankenexperiment” called “delayed-choice entanglement swapping”, formulated by Asher Peres in the year 2000. Two pairs of entangled photons are produced, and one photon from each pair is sent to a party called Victor. Of the two remaining photons, one photon is sent to the party Alice and one is sent to the party Bob. Victor can now choose between two kinds of measurements. If he decides to measure his two photons in a way such that they are forced to be in an entangled state, then also Alice’s and Bob’s photon pair becomes entangled. If Victor chooses to measure his particles individually, Alice’s and Bob’s photon pair ends up in a separable state. Modern quantum optics technology allowed the team to delay Victor’s choice and measurement with respect to the measurements which Alice and Bob perform on their photons. “We found that whether Alice’s and Bob’s photons are entangled and show quantum correlations or are separable and show classical correlations can be decided after they have been measured”, explains Xiao-song Ma, lead author of the study. According to the famous words of Albert Einstein, the effects of quantum entanglement appear as “spooky action at a distance”. The recent experiment has gone one remarkable step further. “Within a naïve classical world view, quantum mechanics can even mimic an influence of future actions on past events”, says Anton Zeilinger. http://phys.org/news/2012-04-quantum-physics-mimics-spooky-action.html
In other words, if my conscious choices really are just merely the result of whatever state the material particles in my brain happen to be in in the past (deterministic) how in blue blazes are my choices instantaneously effecting the state of material particles into the past? This experiment is simply impossible for any coherent materialistic presupposition! And that is just free will Piotr, the really 'hard problem' for your materialism to explain is consciousness. But let's deal with the insurmountable free will problem first, and then when can get to the really 'hard problem' for atheistic materialism.bornagain77_{March 7, 2015
March
03
Mar
7
07
2015
05:38 AM
5
05
38
AM
PDT}

Excerpt from a write up on this find over at http://crev.info/2015/03/oldest-homo-alleged/
Ewen Callaway, in the same issue of Nature, calls it a “messy history” below his flashy headline, “Ethiopian jawbone may mark dawn of humankind.” Be sure to read the subtitle: “A 2.8-million-year-old mandible and a digital model of a key fossil paint a complicated picture of the genus Homo.” Those who grew up with the Leakey stories plastered on covers of National Geographic may be shocked at Fred Spoor’s account of their work on so-called Handy Man: But Homo’s origins are increasingly confusing, as a reanalysis of 1.8-million-year-old fossil specimens, reported in Nature, demonstrates. In the early 1960s, a team led by palaeoanthropologists Louis and Mary Leakey found a deformed lower jaw, hand and partial skull in Olduvai Gorge, Tanzania.
“It was reported in a very informal way in Nature: ‘Sir: I found a bone and I’m showing you a picture now. Goodbye,’” says Fred Spoor, a palaeoanthropologist at University College London. The Leakey team later designated the remains as a new species that they called Homo habilis, meaning the handy man. They contended that members of the species had made stone tools that had been discovered nearby years earlier.
AND, at the very end of the article, we find this very interesting addition:
Update 3/05/15: PhysOrg says that a study found “significant facial variation” among pre-Columbian South Americans – yet they were essentially contemporaneous, and all members of one species: Homo sapiens. THIS SHOWS THAT VARIATION DOES NOT IMPLY EVOLUTION. Ann Ross at NC State. who examined archaeological sites across South America, says, “for a long time, the conventional wisdom was that there was very little variation prior to European contact. Our work shows that there was actually significant variation.” The work “may affect a lot of hypotheses regarding New World anthropology,” PhysOrg says.
It's all so subjective and is far from a precise science. Even what we think we know today is quite speculative and really, to claim we "know" anything for certain, is a bit arrogant because we are dealing with history here. Experimentation is limited to the few bones we have. Who in their right mind really thinks that the current interpretation of the data is accurate? It keeps changing year after year after year. And there is no foreseeable end to it. I wish textbooks would be more honest about how imprecise and subjective this paleoanthropological stuff it.tjguy_{March 7, 2015
March
03
Mar
7
07
2015
05:35 AM
5
05
35
AM
PDT}

bornagain77: The fossil record, despite your denial to the contrary, is not nearly as conducive to your presupposed conclusion of common descent as you imagine. You still haven't attempted an answer to the question. Each non-sapiens hominin found is a confirmation of the hypothesis of common descent. What is the alternative hypothesis that explains how an expedition was *successfully* mounted to find such fossils? Lucky guess?Zachriel_{March 7, 2015
March
03
Mar
7
07
2015
05:23 AM
5
05
23
AM
PDT}

http://books.google.com/books... BA77, A rule of thumb: whenever you come across a book whose authors have to flash their credential on the cover like this:
Brad Harrub, PhD Bert Thompson, PhD
-- don't believe a word of what you find between the covers. It's a sure sign of cargo-cult scholarship. Real scientists never do this.Piotr_{March 6, 2015
March
03
Mar
6
06
2015
10:53 PM
10
10
53
PM
PDT}

as to "Now, on the other hand, if Darwinists claimed that the difference between australopithecine and Homo was obvious and clear, with a wide unbridgeable chasm between the two, then disagreements as to which camp habilus, or rudolfensis, or sediba, or afarensis, etc belong in would be pretty funny – don’t you think?" funny you mention that: 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 “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) Man is indeed as unique, as different from all other animals, as had been traditionally claimed by theologians and philosophers. Evolutionist Ernst Mayr (What Evolution Is. 2001) Evolution of the Genus Homo – Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences – Ian Tattersall, Jeffery H. Schwartz, May 2009 Excerpt: “Definition of the genus Homo is almost as fraught as the definition of Homo sapiens. We look at the evidence for “early Homo,” finding little morphological basis for extending our genus to any of the 2.5–1.6-myr-old fossil forms assigned to “early Homo” or Homo habilis/rudolfensis.”,,,, “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 Casey Luskin, in the talk and links I referenced earlier has many more quotes from Darwinists saying basically the same thing. Moreover, This unbridged gap that recently came out is also interesting: 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 Now this is very interesting because Darwinists have no empirical evidence whatsoever that Darwinian processes can generate non-trivial functional information, and yet we have the sudden appearance of creatures that can create information at will. https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/recent-fossil-find-a-cambrian-explosion-for-humans/#comment-552066bornagain77_{March 6, 2015
March
03
Mar
6
06
2015
10:23 PM
10
10
23
PM
PDT}

BA77,
Perhaps some of the confusion stems from the confusion of Darwinists themselves?
The disagreements that Darwinists have regarding human evolution are the kinds that would be expected if Darwinism were true. If, for instance, the transition from australopithecus to Homo was gradual with intermediate species, then don't you think that there should be fossils and groups in which it is disputed as to which camp they belong to? I would find it problematic if such disagreements didn't occur. And if evolution works by species splintering into sister species, then shouldn't there be times when it's disputed as to which sister species are ancestral to another species? And, of course, there's always going to be the usual disagreements between lumpers and splitters. Now, on the other hand, if Darwinists claimed that the difference between australopithecine and Homo was obvious and clear, with a wide unbridgeable chasm between the two, then disagreements as to which camp habilus, or rudolfensis, or sediba, or afarensis, etc belong in would be pretty funny - don't you think? ;-)goodusername_{March 6, 2015
March
03
Mar
6
06
2015
10:05 PM
10
10
05
PM
PDT}

goodusername, "have claimed numerous times, and alluded to again in this OP. That the Dmanisi find, with its mix of habilis, rudolfensis, and erectus features" Perhaps some of the confusion stems from the confusion of Darwinists themselves? For instance: The Truth About Human Origins: Excerpt: "It is practically impossible to determine which "family tree" (for human evolution) one should accept. Richard Leakey (of the famed fossil hunting family from Africa) has proposed one. His late mother, Mary Leakey, proposed another. Donald Johanson, former president of the Institute of Human Origins in Berkeley, California, has proposed yet another. And as late as 2001, Meave Leakey (Richard's wife) has proposed still another.,," http://books.google.com/books?id=J9pON9yB8HkC&pg=PT28&lpg=PT28 Human Evolution Excerpt: Tattersall thinks H. erectus was an evolutionary dead end. Uconn says he was our immediate ancestor. There are several other differences which we won’t take the time to point out. A recent issue of Science presents the six different explanations of hominid evolution at the right, which they refer to as “Figure 1.” Their caption says: Figure 1. Cladograms favored in recent early hominin parsimony analyses. (A) Most parsimonious cladogram recovered by Chamberlain and Wood (19) using Chamberlain’s (18) operational taxonomic units. Homo sp. = H. rudolfensis. (B) Most parsimonious cladogram obtained in Chamberlain (18). African H. erectus = H. ergaster. (C) Cladogram favored in Wood (9). Homo sp. nov. = H. rudolfensis and H. aff. erectus = H. ergaster. (D) Most parsimonious cladogram recovered by Wood (2). A. boisei includes A. aethiopicus. (E) Most parsimonious cladogram obtained by Lieberman et al. (20). 1470 group = H. rudolfensis; 1813 group = H. habilis. (F) Cladogram favored by Strait et al. (17). http://scienceagainstevolution.org/v4i4f.htmbornagain77_{March 6, 2015
March
03
Mar
6
06
2015
08:51 PM
8
08
51
PM
PDT}

BA77,
You need to get your facts straight.
I thought I had. I was repeating what News, DeWitt who "knows a thing or two about skulls", and others here have claimed numerous times, and alluded to again in this OP. That the Dmanisi find, with its mix of habilis, rudolfensis, and erectus features, indicates that what were thought to be separate species of early Homo are in fact a single species of human. And that there's a clear and obvious break between this group and the australopithecines. And as you and Luskin have argued, habilis and rudolfensis are just apes along with australopithecines. So we have two groups: One that includes australopithecines, habilus, rudolfensis (along with the newly found jaw bone) And another group that includes habilus, rudolfensis, modern humans (along with the newly found jaw bone) And there's a clear obvious unbridgeable gap between these two groups. What's the problem? Let me know if I misrepresented anyone's views.goodusername_{March 6, 2015
March
03
Mar
6
06
2015
08:34 PM
8
08
34
PM
PDT}

BA77, here's some advice. Don't expose me and wd400, expose the great science conspiracy. Then, create a new paradigm of science. Then create a web site, people visit mainly to see what outrageous areas of nothingness this new paradigm investigates. Then write interminable posts supporting it with vacuosity, then... Hang on...!rvb8_{March 6, 2015
March
03
Mar
6
06
2015
08:27 PM
8
08
27
PM
PDT}

Fine by me, it makes it easier on me to expose you as fraudulent when I can just do it in one shot and be done with it. (Although, every once in a while, I would like to expose you as fraudulent over and over again using the evidence you present against you) "In so far as a scientific statement speaks about reality, it must be falsifiable; and in so far as it is not falsifiable, it does not speak about reality." Karl Popper - The Two Fundamental Problems of the Theory of Knowledge (2014 edition), Routledge http://izquotes.com/quote/147518 It’s (Much) Easier to Falsify Intelligent Design than Darwinian Evolution – Michael Behe, PhD https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_T1v_VLueGk The Law of Physicodynamic Incompleteness - David L. Abel Excerpt: "If decision-node programming selections are made randomly or by law rather than with purposeful intent, no non-trivial (sophisticated) function will spontaneously arise." If only one exception to this null hypothesis were published, the hypothesis would be falsified. Falsification would require an experiment devoid of behind-the-scenes steering. Any artificial selection hidden in the experimental design would disqualify the experimental falsification. After ten years of continual republication of the null hypothesis with appeals for falsification, no falsification has been provided. The time has come to extend this null hypothesis into a formal scientific prediction: "No non trivial algorithmic/computational utility will ever arise from chance and/or necessity alone." https://www.academia.edu/9957206/The_Law_of_Physicodynamic_Incompleteness_Scirus_Topic_Page_bornagain77_{March 6, 2015
March
03
Mar
6
06
2015
08:06 PM
8
08
06
PM
PDT}

wd400. Heh!:) Me too!rvb8_{March 6, 2015
March
03
Mar
6
06
2015
07:57 PM
7
07
57
PM
PDT}

BA, I mainly scroll over your posts.wd400_{March 6, 2015
March
03
Mar
6
06
2015
07:38 PM
7
07
38
PM
PDT}

wd400, did you see post 5? Exactly what experiment can we run that would potentially falsify Darwinism? https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/recent-fossil-find-a-cambrian-explosion-for-humans/#comment-552008 A Philosophical Question...Does Evolution have a Hard Core ? Some Concluding Food for Thought In my research on the demarcation problem, I have noticed philosophers of science attempting to balance (usually unconsciously) a consistent demarcation criteria against the the disruptive effects that it’s application might have with regard to the academic status quo (and evolution in particular)… Few philosophers of science will even touch such matters, but (perhaps unintentionally) Imre Lakatos does offer us a peek at how one might go about balancing these schizophrenic demands (in Motterlini1999: 24) “Let us call the first school militant positivism; you will understand why later on. The problem of this school was to find certain demarcation criteria similar to those I have outlined, but these also had to satisfy certain boundary conditions, as a mathematician would say. I am referring to a definite set of people to which most scientists as well as Popper and Carnap would belong. These people think that there are goodies and baddies among scientific theories, and once you have defined a demarcation criterion. you should divide all your theories between the two groups. You would end up. for example, with a goodies list including Copernicus’s (Theory1), Galileo’s (T2), Kepler’s (T3), Newton’s (T4) … and Einstein’s (T5), along with (but this is just my supposition) Darwin’s (T6). Let me just anticipate that nobody to date has yet found a demarcation criterion according to which Darwin can be described as scientific, but this is exactly what we are looking for.” So basically, the demarcation problem is a fun game philosophers enjoy playing, but when they realize the implications regarding the theory of evolution, they quickly back off… http://www.samizdat.qc.ca/cosmos/philo/hardcore_pg.htmbornagain77_{March 6, 2015
March
03
Mar
6
06
2015
07:35 PM
7
07
35
PM
PDT}

Wallstreeter, Do you remember what you said in #2?
What we see here is that Darwinian evolution is non falsifiable. When the fossil evidence speaks out against it they will say that it’s a result of poor fossil record and twhn proceed to take a rain check on the fossil record while proclaiming Darwinian evolution a scientific fact .
Where in this jawbone do we see that evolution is not falsifiable?wd400_{March 6, 2015
March
03
Mar
6
06
2015
07:32 PM
7
07
32
PM
PDT}

Piotr and others, it is you that are making the positive claim for evolution therefore it is you that needs to defend it. We don't need even one iota of evidence for any other competing theory , what we continually see is the evidence for Darwinian evolution being full of subjective opinions, wishful thinking and blind faith . If you people questioned Darwinian evolution as you question God, veridical Nde's and psi Darwinian evolution would have been thrown into the trash where it belongs a lomg time ago. Isn't it you atbeists that came up with the saying that the onus of proof is on the one making theosis over claim ? I guess you use that saying selectively don't u ;)wallstreeter43_{March 6, 2015
March
03
Mar
6
06
2015
06:07 PM
6
06
07
PM
PDT}

"Whatever the explanation of bipedal locomotion in hominines" gosh I was hoping for something a little more,,, a little more,,, let's see,,, I was hoping for something ,,, Oh I know,,, I was hoping for something a little more SCIENTIFIC than 'Whatever the explanation' for crying out loud. Goodness grief you guys are pathetic. :)bornagain77_{March 6, 2015
March
03
Mar
6
06
2015
02:49 PM
2
02
49
PM
PDT}

#32 BA77, OK, I get it. You can only cut and paste, not discuss anything. That's a good reason for ignoring you.Piotr_{March 6, 2015
March
03
Mar
6
06
2015
02:45 PM
2
02
45
PM
PDT}

#30 BA77 Whatever the explanation of bipedal locomotion in hominines (I made no claims about it), australopithecine fossils are associated with dry savannas (grassland with widely spaced trees) rather than tropical rainforests. Chimps are pretty adaptable, but live mostly in dense jungle forests and wet savannas today, and it's at least possible that it was the preferred habitat of their ancestors.Piotr_{March 6, 2015
March
03
Mar
6
06
2015
02:42 PM
2
02
42
PM
PDT}

as to: "will you, please, explain to me what “a different species of bacteria” is?" No! I quoted Professor Linton and gave you his e-mail. If you were truly honest in your inquiry, (instead of just playing games as you always do), and wanted rock solid answers for your questions, you would jump at the chance to ask him instead of me,,,, to ask him if it was really true that no bacteria has ever been changed by Darwinian processes into another type of bacteria. Myself, considering the paltry results of Lenski, and the extreme conservation of morphology for bacteria throughout deep time, I do not doubt his claim one bit. Richard Lenski's Long-Term Evolution Experiments with E. coli and the Origin of New Biological Information - September 2011 Excerpt: The results of future work aside, so far, during the course of the longest, most open-ended, and most extensive laboratory investigation of bacterial evolution, a number of adaptive mutations have been identified that endow the bacterial strain with greater fitness compared to that of the ancestral strain in the particular growth medium. The goal of Lenski's research was not to analyze adaptive mutations in terms of gain or loss of function, as is the focus here, but rather to address other longstanding evolutionary questions. Nonetheless, all of the mutations identified to date can readily be classified as either modification-of-function or loss-of-FCT. (Michael J. Behe, "Experimental Evolution, Loss-of-Function Mutations and 'The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution'," Quarterly Review of Biology, Vol. 85(4) (December, 2010).) http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/09/richard_lenskis_long_term_evol051051.html The Paradox of the "Ancient" (250 Million Year Old) Bacterium Which Contains "Modern" Protein-Coding Genes: “Almost without exception, bacteria isolated from ancient material have proven to closely resemble modern bacteria at both morphological and molecular levels.” Heather Maughan*, C. William Birky Jr., Wayne L. Nicholson, William D. Rosenzweig§ and Russell H. Vreeland ; http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/19/9/1637 AMBER: THE LOOKING GLASS INTO THE PAST: Excerpt: These (fossilized bacteria) cells are actually very similar to present day cyanobacteria. This is not only true for an isolated case but many living genera of cyanobacteria can be linked to fossil cyanobacteria. The detail noted in the fossils of this group gives indication of extreme conservation of morphology, more extreme than in other organisms. http://bcb705.blogspot.com/2007/03/amber-looking-glass-into-past_23.html Static evolution: is pond scum the same now as billions of years ago? Excerpt: But what intrigues (paleo-biologist) J. William Schopf most is lack of change. Schopf was struck 30 years ago by the apparent similarities between some 1-billion-year-old fossils of blue-green bacteria and their modern microbial counterparts. "They surprisingly looked exactly like modern species," Schopf recalls. Now, after comparing data from throughout the world, Schopf and others have concluded that modern pond scum differs little from the ancient blue-greens. "This similarity in morphology is widespread among fossils of [varying] times," says Schopf. As evidence, he cites the 3,000 such fossils found; http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Static+evolution%3A+is+pond+scum+the+same+now+as+billions+of+years+ago%3F-a014909330 Scientists discover organism that hasn't evolved in more than 2 billion years - February 3, 2015 Excerpt: Using cutting-edge technology, they found that the bacteria look the same as bacteria of the same region from 2.3 billion years ago -- and that both sets of ancient bacteria are indistinguishable from modern sulfur bacteria found in mud off of the coast of Chile. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/02/150203104131.htmbornagain77_{March 6, 2015
March
03
Mar
6
06
2015
02:39 PM
2
02
39
PM
PDT}

#29 BA77, Why should I take it up with someone else? You brought it up, so will you, please, explain to me what "a different species of bacteria" is?Piotr_{March 6, 2015
March
03
Mar
6
06
2015
02:21 PM
2
02
21
PM
PDT}

as to this old chestnut: "If chimp ancestors preferred rainforests while the hominin lineage had branched out into grassland habitats," 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/2013/02/another_difficu069411.html As well, about half way down in the following article, Casey Luskin reveals that many supposed human ancestors are found in wooded areas, which questions the 'savanna hypothesis' from yet another angle. For Neil Tyson and Cosmos, Serious Scientific Controversies Are All a Thing of the Past - Casey Luskin May 6, 2014 http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/05/for_neil_tyson_085291.html Moreover,,, Energy Efficiency Doesn’t Explain Human Walking? Sept. 17, 2012 Excerpt: Why hominids evolved upright walking is one of the biggest questions in human evolution. One school of thought suggests that bipedalism was the most energetically efficient way for our ancestors to travel as grasslands expanded and forests shrank across Africa some five million to seven million years ago. A new study in the Journal of Human Evolution challenges that claim, concluding that the efficiency of human walking and running is not so different from other mammals. Physiologists Lewis Halsey of the University of Roehampton in England and Craig White of the University of Queensland in Australia compared the efficiency of human locomotion to that of 80 species of mammals, including monkeys, rodents, horses, bears and elephants.,,, To evaluate whether energy efficiency played a role in the evolution of upright walking, Halsey and White note that hominids should be compared to their closest relatives. For example, if human walking is more efficient than chimpanzee walking than you would expect based on chance alone, then it lends support to the energy-efficiency explanation. But that’s not what the researchers found. In fact, the energetic differences between humans and chimpanzees are smaller than the differences between very closely related species that share the same type of locomotion, such as red deer versus reindeer or African dogs versus Arctic foxes. In some cases, even different species within the same genus, such as different types of chipmunks, have greater variation in their walking efficiencies than humans and chimps do. http://blogs.smithsonianmag.com/hominids/2012/09/energy-efficiency-doesnt-explain-human-walking/bornagain77_{March 6, 2015
March
03
Mar
6
06
2015
02:05 PM
2
02
05
PM
PDT}

as to: Define “a different species of bacteria”. take it up with,,, Alan H. Linton – emeritus professor of bacteriology, University of Bristol http://www.bris.ac.uk/contact/person/getDetails?personKey=O23Xi3P1CXp7t6ydBy4Xu99UMgBrK4 Myself, I'm a bit more lenient than Professor Linton is. Instead of mutating and selecting a bacteria into a entirely new type of bacteria, all I ask Darwinists to demonstrate is the origination of a single molecular machine by Darwinian processes. “The argument that random variation and Darwinian gradualism may not be adequate to explain complex biological systems is hardly new […} in fact, there are no detailed Darwinian accounts for the evolution of any fundamental biochemical or cellular system, only a variety of wishful speculations. It is remarkable that Darwinism is accepted as a satisfactory explanation for such a vast subject — evolution — with so little rigorous examination of how well its basic theses works in illuminating specific instances of biological adaptation or diversity.” Prof. James Shapiro – “In the Details…What?” National Review, 19 September 1996, pp. 64. Michael Behe - No Scientific Literature For Evolution of Any Irreducibly Complex Molecular Machines http://www.metacafe.com/watch/5302950/ Dr. James Tour, who, in my honest opinion, currently builds the most sophisticated man-made molecular machines in the world, will buy lunch for anyone who can explain to him exactly how Darwinian evolution works: Top Ten Most Cited Chemist in the World Knows Darwinian Evolution Does Not Work - James Tour, Phd. - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Y5-VNg-S0s “I build molecules for a living, I can’t begin to tell you how difficult that job is. I stand in awe of God because of what he has done through his creation. Only a rookie who knows nothing about science would say science takes away from faith. If you really study science, it will bring you closer to God." James Tour – one of the leading nano-tech engineers in the world - Strobel, Lee (2000), The Case For Faith, p. 111 Science & Faith — Dr. James Tour – video (At the two minute mark of the following video, you can see a nano-car that was built by Dr. James Tour’s team) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pR4QhNFTtywbornagain77_{March 6, 2015
March
03
Mar
6
06
2015
02:00 PM
2
02
00
PM
PDT}

#27 ppolish, Today there are two chimp species, one of them with four subspecies, more different from one another than any human populations. Extant chimps are therefore much more varied than extant humans. If chimp ancestors preferred rainforests while the hominin lineage had branched out into grassland habitats, the chances of their being preserved as fossils were very different. The only known fossil chimp remains come from a savannah environment; the jungle populations may have left very few bones behind (none have been found so far).Piotr_{March 6, 2015
March
03
Mar
6
06
2015
12:42 PM
12
12
42
PM
PDT}

Lots of different humans over the last three million years. How about chimp? Lots of different chimps? Not much fossil evidence out there.ppolish_{March 6, 2015
March
03
Mar
6
06
2015
12:18 PM
12
12
18
PM
PDT}

BA77 Define "a different species of bacteria".Piotr_{March 6, 2015
March
03
Mar
6
06
2015
12:01 PM
12
12
01
PM
PDT}

Contemplating Bill Nye’s 51 skulls slide - February 10, 2014 - with video Excerpt: David A. DeWitt, Biology & Chemistry chair at Liberty, knows a thing or two about skulls, and writes to say, "This afternoon and evening I tracked down 46 of the 51 skulls that were on the slide Nye showed in the Ken Ham debate (at about 1:05 on the Youtube video). This was a challenge because some of them are not very well analyzed, partial skulls, etc. While some of them are well known, others are rarely discussed. I believe only a well-trained anthropologist would have been able to address that slide in the very brief time that it was visible. It was especially confusing because the skulls are in different orientations (including one that is viewed from the bottom and one that is just a jaw). They were not shown with the same scale so the relative sizes are wrong, and they are not grouped or lined up in any clear order. They are mixed up by type of skull and by date, and the only label is the name of the individual skull. I suspect that this was deliberate.,,," "I can only conclude that the sole purpose of showing such a slide was to confuse and obfuscate, not educate.” https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/from-david-dewitt-at-liberty-u-contemplating-bill-nyes-51-skulls-slide/ seeing as Darwinists have been caught being very less than forthright in the past with the fossil evidence, I think we skeptics of human evolution are more than justified to ask them to experimentally prove the plausibility of changing one body plan into another: https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/recent-fossil-find-a-cambrian-explosion-for-humans/#comment-552060 Scant search for the Maker Excerpt: But where is the experimental evidence? None exists in the literature claiming that one species has been shown to evolve into another. Bacteria, the simplest form of independent life, are ideal for this kind of study, with generation times of 20 to 30 minutes, and populations achieved after 18 hours. But throughout 150 years of the science of bacteriology, there is no evidence that one species of bacteria has changed into another, in spite of the fact that populations have been exposed to potent chemical and physical mutagens and that, uniquely, bacteria possess extrachromosomal, transmissible plasmids. Since there is no evidence for species changes between the simplest forms of unicellular life, it is not surprising that there is no evidence for evolution from prokaryotic to eukaryotic cells, let alone throughout the whole array of higher multicellular organisms. - Alan H. Linton - emeritus professor of bacteriology, University of Bristol. http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?storycode=159282bornagain77_{March 6, 2015
March
03
Mar
6
06
2015
11:46 AM
11
11
46
AM
PDT}

Some brain volumes (in cm^3): Chimpnazee/bonobo: 300-500 Ardipithecus ramidus: 300-350 Australopithecus afarensis: 380-500 Paranthropus robustus: 410-530 Homo habilis/rudolfensis: 500-800 H. ergaster/georgicus/erectus: 600-1200 H. heidelbergensis: 1100-1400 H. neanderthalensis: 1125-1750 H. sapiens: 1000-1490Piotr_{March 6, 2015
March
03
Mar
6
06
2015
11:23 AM
11
11
23
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply