Slashdot Mirror

Finding new skeletons in older rock can be easy. Finding fossilized skeletons- the same age as the rock- that would be interesting.

For more reading, check out the whole index of standard creationist claims, as well as their good set of FAQS, including How do we know the age of the earth?, and fossil hominids.

As to humans making it out to the New World that much earlier than previously known, I'm not surprised... we're a wandering species (and genus), going way back. Modern Homo sapiens was poking about in odd places by 100k years ago, so there isn't any inherent reason why we shouldn't have been there. However, generally when humans arrive in force we tend to leave evidence (like stone age habitats or megafauna extinctions), so these potential first North Americans were keeping fairly quiet, archeologically-wise.

Finding new skeletons in older rock can be easy. Finding fossilized skeletons- the same age as the rock- that would be interesting.

For more reading, check out the whole index of standard creationist claims, as well as their good set of FAQS, including How do we know the age of the earth?, and fossil hominids.

As to humans making it out to the New World that much earlier than previously known, I'm not surprised... we're a wandering species (and genus), going way back. Modern Homo sapiens was poking about in odd places by 100k years ago, so there isn't any inherent reason why we shouldn't have been there. However, generally when humans arrive in force we tend to leave evidence (like stone age habitats or megafauna extinctions), so these potential first North Americans were keeping fairly quiet, archeologically-wise.

Finding new skeletons in older rock can be easy. Finding fossilized skeletons- the same age as the rock- that would be interesting.

For more reading, check out the whole index of standard creationist claims, as well as their good set of FAQS, including How do we know the age of the earth?, and fossil hominids.

As to humans making it out to the New World that much earlier than previously known, I'm not surprised... we're a wandering species (and genus), going way back. Modern Homo sapiens was poking about in odd places by 100k years ago, so there isn't any inherent reason why we shouldn't have been there. However, generally when humans arrive in force we tend to leave evidence (like stone age habitats or megafauna extinctions), so these potential first North Americans were keeping fairly quiet, archeologically-wise.

Finding new skeletons in older rock can be easy. Finding fossilized skeletons- the same age as the rock- that would be interesting.

For more reading, check out the whole index of standard creationist claims, as well as their good set of FAQS, including How do we know the age of the earth?, and fossil hominids.

As to humans making it out to the New World that much earlier than previously known, I'm not surprised... we're a wandering species (and genus), going way back. Modern Homo sapiens was poking about in odd places by 100k years ago, so there isn't any inherent reason why we shouldn't have been there. However, generally when humans arrive in force we tend to leave evidence (like stone age habitats or megafauna extinctions), so these potential first North Americans were keeping fairly quiet, archeologically-wise.

Finding new skeletons in older rock can be easy. Finding fossilized skeletons- the same age as the rock- that would be interesting.

For more reading, check out the whole index of standard creationist claims, as well as their good set of FAQS, including How do we know the age of the earth?, and fossil hominids.

As to humans making it out to the New World that much earlier than previously known, I'm not surprised... we're a wandering species (and genus), going way back. Modern Homo sapiens was poking about in odd places by 100k years ago, so there isn't any inherent reason why we shouldn't have been there. However, generally when humans arrive in force we tend to leave evidence (like stone age habitats or megafauna extinctions), so these potential first North Americans were keeping fairly quiet, archeologically-wise.

Finding new skeletons in older rock can be easy. Finding fossilized skeletons- the same age as the rock- that would be interesting.

For more reading, check out the whole index of standard creationist claims, as well as their good set of FAQS, including How do we know the age of the earth?, and fossil hominids.

As to humans making it out to the New World that much earlier than previously known, I'm not surprised... we're a wandering species (and genus), going way back. Modern Homo sapiens was poking about in odd places by 100k years ago, so there isn't any inherent reason why we shouldn't have been there. However, generally when humans arrive in force we tend to leave evidence (like stone age habitats or megafauna extinctions), so these potential first North Americans were keeping fairly quiet, archeologically-wise.

Finding new skeletons in older rock can be easy. Finding fossilized skeletons- the same age as the rock- that would be interesting.

For more reading, check out the whole index of standard creationist claims, as well as their good set of FAQS, including How do we know the age of the earth?, and fossil hominids.

As to humans making it out to the New World that much earlier than previously known, I'm not surprised... we're a wandering species (and genus), going way back. Modern Homo sapiens was poking about in odd places by 100k years ago, so there isn't any inherent reason why we shouldn't have been there. However, generally when humans arrive in force we tend to leave evidence (like stone age habitats or megafauna extinctions), so these potential first North Americans were keeping fairly quiet, archeologically-wise.

Man didn't evolve from apes. Man and apes had a common ancestor. You are correct in that no one observed the speciation of humanity, but studies such as cladistics show the varying similarities between humans and the other primates and gives an explanation of how our species have diverged.

So yes, evolution is an unproven theory. It just happens to best one that we have at the moment.

Sorry, not true. Speciation has repeatedly been observed in nature.

Evolution has been proven. The word 'theory' has no particular weight in science. Darwin would have been equally justified in calling it his Law of Evolution.

Whether evolution proceeds along a strict Darwinian model of steady state incremental change or more like Steven Jay Gould's punctuated equilibrium is a matter of debate.

But there is no debate over the existence of evolution itself.

Best wishes,
Mike.

http://www.universalway.org/Foreign/origins.html

"It is the position of many Biblical researchers that most of the Old Testament comes from other, more ancient writings.
Even ** Jewish ** writers admit that most of the Hebrew writings were merely taken freely from Sumerian, Babylonian, Egyptian, and even Greek sources.

- Horace Meyer Kallen, at one time a professor at the Jewish New School of Social Research, said that the Book of Job was lifted bodily from an early and obscure Greek play.

- Scientist and author Immanuel Velikovsky admitted that there are "many parallels" between the Vedic Hymns and the Books of Joel and Isaiah.

- Hebrew scholar Zecharia Sitchin claimed that the Book of Genesis is based on the Sumerian creation myth.

- The story of Noah comes from the Sumerian legend of Gilgamesh.

- The Psalms were taken word for word from Akhenaton's Hymns to the Sun, written 600 years earlier in Egypt.

- The Ten Commandments (3,5,6,7,8,9,10) were taken from the Egyptian Book of the Dead

http://www.wsu.edu:8080/~dee/EGYPT/BOD125.HTM
h ttp://www.geocities.com/wally_mo/moses2.html

#3 I have come to you, my Lord, I have brought myself here to behold
your beauties.
I know you, and I know your name,
I have not cursed a god. I have not scorned any god.

#5 I have not oppressed the members of my family.
I have not oppressed servants.
I have not cause harm to be done to a servant by his master.

#6 I have not killed.
I have not given the order to kill.
I have not inflicted pain on anyone.

#7 I have not fornicated.

#8 I have not added to or stolen land.
I have not added weights to the scales to cheat buyers.
I have not misread the scales to cheat buyers.

#9 I have not lied,

#10 I have not encroached on the land of others.

Here is an interesting link to more Egyptian & Old Testament
scriptural similiarilities:
http://www.mystae.com/restricted /streams/thera/egy pt.html

- The New Testament wasn't compiled until 200-400 years after the fact. by Irenaeus.
http://www.thenazareneway.com/gospels_s econd_centu ry_writings.htm

"If this is true, then many informed researchers have asked: How can
we call the Torah and other books of the Old Testament the Word of
God?"

The Bible is NOT to be interpreted strictly literally, for why does Paul write in Gal 4:21-24 "These things may be taken _figuratively_, for the women represent two covenants." ?

Furthermore, if the Bible is the word of God, _which_ version would that be??

Peace

--
The evolution & "supposed" pre-ancient history of man is a crock.
One of the many proofs that intelligent pre-historic civilizations existed long BEFORE man's ancient civilizations...
1. Progression of "apparent" history of "man" - Hominidae is 3 millions years old
2. Geological Time Frames perspective
3. A machined 3D relief map 120-million years old in a 1-ton stone, with inscriptions. WTF?!

Assuming that it is genetic, then why hasn't it been selected against? Does gayness confer some advantage?

Two minutes per idiot adds up to a lot of time!

The dating of human and dinosaur remains has already gone through actual scientific investigation and is no longer in dispute by reputable scientists. The people who disagree are, at best, mistaken and have yet to see it, or at worst, religious zealots.

Your use of "explained away" in your last sentence is troubling. I get the feeling you're not a fan of actual scientific investigation when it debunks something you believe in.

Evolution is not merely a theory, but a fact that has been observed in real life. Evolution is the overall concept that unifies the biological sciences and is about as disputed as gravity.

What is discussed in the in the scientific community are the actual workings of evolution. The first theory was Darwin's (Survival Of The Fittest), but other mechanism have been proposed.

I find it interesting that computer geeks reject evolution as a concept when applied to life, when it has been successfully applied to software, i.e. genetic algorithms and evolutionary computation.

Evolution is not merely a theory, but a fact that has been observed in real life. Evolution is the overall concept that unifies the biological sciences and is about as disputed as gravity.

What is discussed in the in the scientific community are the actual workings of evolution. The first theory was Darwin's (Survival Of The Fittest), but other mechanism have been proposed.

I find it interesting that computer geeks reject evolution as a concept when applied to life, when it has been successfully applied to software, i.e. genetic algorithms and evolutionary computation.

Evolution is not merely a theory, but a fact that has been observed in real life. Evolution is the overall concept that unifies the biological sciences and is about as disputed as gravity.

What is discussed in the in the scientific community are the actual workings of evolution. The first theory was Darwin's (Survival Of The Fittest), but other mechanism have been proposed.

I find it interesting that computer geeks reject evolution as a concept when applied to life, when it has been successfully applied to software, i.e. genetic algorithms and evolutionary computation.

Behe's book is in fact quite silly and widely recognized as such. (It may well be both compelling and silly, which makes it all the more pernicious.) See, for example, this review.

What I find particularly poignant is that one need not know anything about biology to spot the glaring holes in Behe's logic. I visited a rather beautiful natural rock arch a while ago. If any of the rocks making it up were removed, the arch would collapse. (Assembling such a delicately-balanced multi-ton construction over a void even with modern civil engineering would be difficult.) It is both aesthetic and function, and not merely random. It has irreducible specified complexity by Behe's definition. Therefore, Behe would have us conclude that the arch was assembled by gods or fairies rather than by natural processes.

(Indeed, the young-earth creationists are compelled to believe this, as it would probably be impossible to erode so many meters of granite in only a few thousand years.)

Pointing out that there are some phenomena which biology cannot explain in complete detail isn't unscientific, though it's perhaps not very helpful. Most of the things Behe questions have apparently now been handled to some extent. But of course there are things we don't completely understand yet; that doesn't mean we understand nothing or that we have to assume "goddidit".

Basically Behe states that any mutation that is not beneficial will be lost over time as the animal with the mutation will be less likely to survive to pass on its genes.

I am not a geneticist, but I don't think that statement is true. You can only say that any mutation which is *harmful* will tend to die out, but there are many possible mutations which are neither beneficial nor harmful. It is possible the mutation is in "junk" (currently unused) DNA; it may have no effect on survival (eye color); it may be a duplicate; it may not be expressed; it may have no relevance to the environment; it may be cancelled by another effect.

If Behe did say that it shows he is enormously out of touch.

When somebody using Behe's techniques designs, for example, a new antiviral drug, then I'll believe he's onto something.

Of course speciation has been observed. It's just that creationists don't count those observed speciation events as speciation, presumably because "it's not a big enough change". Well, it's not supposed to be a big change. It's supposed to be such a small change that you can barely tell that the species is different. It takes thousands of years for the species to diverge significantly -- and of course we can't observe that over human timescales.

Of course speciation has been observed. It's just that creationists don't count those observed speciation events as speciation, presumably because "it's not a big enough change". Well, it's not supposed to be a big change. It's supposed to be such a small change that you can barely tell that the species is different. It takes thousands of years for the species to diverge significantly -- and of course we can't observe that over human timescales.

That you insist that "there is no way what-so-ever" for the bombardier beetle to evolve, in the absence of any proof, is a sign of the limitations of your imagination, not of evolution. History is replete with examples of people insisting that there was "no way whatsoever" that science could explain various natural phenomena; they have a very poor track record of being right concerning what science can explain. In this particular case, you may want to read this FAQ.

Vuletic makes some good arguments, and rebuts a lot of faulty creationist arguments. However, I don't think he disproves creationism. Here are my responses to the some of his arguments: Various biological structures (the human eye) is flawed. The human eye, and flightless birds, function well. There are various imperfections in structures do to post-creation changes (evolution). For example, some flightless birds have hollow bones because they used to be able to fly, but lost that ability (became too heavy). There are transitional forms between reptiles and mammals. Assuming a single designer, it isn't suprising to find forms that have aspects of two groups of animals. There isn't any smooth transition between reptiles and birds. My argument is weak, but Vuletic says there are multiple paths between reptiles and birds, which seems equally weak. From an article that he links to: Which exposes a general problem with "irreducible complexity" -- it is a "God of the Gaps" explanation. Each time we show that a supposedly "irreducibly complex" system is not, by removing one part, a supporter can claim that our new system is now "irreducibly complex". Any similarity to Zeno's Paradox is surely accidental. But that problem is inherent to evolution: you start with nothing or next to nothing in evolution. There will be a lot of points where you can't get from A to B just by piece-by-piece change. This being said, I'm still keeping an open mind, and continuing to look at the issue. I give preference to the Bible, because that has other bodies of evidence supporting it. Disclaimer: IANAB (biologist)

In other words, the Y-Chromosome ancestor was:

You are overstating the importance of the Y-chromosome "Adam" (and the mitochondrial "Eve"). Yes, our Y-chromosomes all come from one man and all our mitochondrial DNA comes from one woman... but so what? Indications are that these two people were separated by vast spans of time, and anyway: what about the rest of the genome?

Also, just because all our Y-chromosomes come from one man does NOT mean that was the only man around at the time. It just means that his lineage is the only one that survived until the present. Read this.

And there it is, argument CB310, a standard argument from incredulity on this beetle and how it could have come into being.

And there it is, argument CB310, a standard argument from incredulity on this beetle and how it could have come into being.

And there it is, argument CB310, a standard argument from incredulity on this beetle and how it could have come into being.

I have yet to see your compelling evidence and I look forward to hearing more about it.

My favorite creationist example of something that looks like it had to have been "by design" is the explosive defense of the bombardier beetle. It takes 3 simultaneous ingredients to make it work, and having all their production and injection systems arise simultaneously by chance seems to be highly unlikely.

Of course one is left with the job of explaining precisely why God needed to create a beetle which shoots corrosive chemicals from its abdomen.

For more information on the bombardier beetle, try checking out the talk.origins FAQ on the subject.

You shouldn't miss good old http://www.talkorigins.org/. Great site on the whole issue. Basically a bunch of comprehensive rebuttals to all the standard creationist arguments.

Where did the original poster claim that evolution is "what really happened"? What is your basis for calling him ignorant?

But in point of fact, evolution did "really happen"; it is both a fact and a theory.

Remember, Evolution (as well as Creation) are both Theories (the Theory of Evolution).

Incorrect. Evolution itself is not a theory. However, there exists a theory that attributes the development of complex life to the process of evolution (that is what you are most likely referring to). I suggest you read a brief article over at talk.origins titled Top Five Major Misconceptions about Evolution . It should help clear up some confusion about what evolution is and what scientists mean when using the term.

Is evolution really a fact?

Yes.

Has it been observed in the amazing way that evolutionists describe it to have happened?

Yes. Speciation has been observed, in the lab and in the wild.

Why should they feel affronted, regardless of whether Creationists are right or wrong?

For the same reason a geography teacher is affronted when parents come in demanding they teach that the earth is flat. The same reason that Jews don't really like people who claim the Holocaust never happened. The same reason psychics never win the lottery, or at least with no more regularity than the rest of us. These people are simply wrong (and demonstrably so), and they use the most asinine arguments to support their ridiculously stupid stances.

If Creationists are just a bunch of blind religious zealots, why not ignore them?

Because they won't ignore the rest of us and leave their foolishness at home. Because they go to school boards, they go to governors, they go to Congress demanding in no uncertain terms that their favorite brand of nonsense be taught as fact to everyone else's children. Because students that _are_ taught ID are in for a rude awakening if and when they go to college where there's none of this "Aww, evolution is _just_ a theory" foolishness.

Wrong. At least assuming you mean scientists and other intelligent individuals. The reasons that the average person believes what they believe are not relevant to this discussion.

As for scientists, their view on evolution is usually founded in the scientific method and falsifiability.

I don't think any scientist will tell you that the theory of evolution is complete or proven in every aspect - as with most facets of biology, it's complex, and the data we have is essentially a partial, but extensive, set of samples. The problem with Creationists is that they fail to separate articles of faith ('God is the ultimate creator of the world' - a statement that is not incompatible with falsifiable observations) and science ('the world is 5000 years old' - there is no evidence to support this and many other such claims).

Obviously, it's a complicated fray, and some of the Intelligent Design people make less outlandish claims, and instead try to attack the theory of evolution by finding exceptions or outliers. Unfortunately, they often selectively ignore important research and evidence, and have mostly been debunked (yes, I've read some of this stuff by these people out of curiousity to see how they presented their arguments, and I wasn't very impressed).

Most of the arguments, at a basic level, are elucidated quite well on the talk.origins FAQ. Strangely, the site doesn't read like religious mantra to me.

While they can be roughly broken down between old-earth creationists and young-earth creationists, the talk.origins FAQ contains a more verbose breakdown of the community.

If you'd actually read anything about the history of fraud in archeology, you'd realise that it's overwhelmingly amateurs and dilletantes who perpetrate it, not the professionals. People of Scandinavian descent who want to prove that the Vikings explored Minnesota, or those like Joseph Smith trying to start a new religion. The likely perpetrator of the Piltdown hoax, Dawson, was a lawyer, and only hunted fossils in his spare time. Your suggestion that Lucy is a fraud is shared only by creationists, and I've never heard that Cro-Magnon man is somehow false.

Looking at Hominid species and their brain sizes, and the actual information about the fossils themselves, you can examine the differences.

While the smallest of the small modern human overlaps with non-pygmy H. erectus, as written here: "The low volume skulls were not primitive or aberrant in any way; their small volume was merely a result of the smallness of the entire skull. So although the extreme lower range of modern human brain sizes does overlap that of Homo erectus, their skulls are very different: in H. erectus, the brain case really is smaller in relation to the rest of the skull. In small modern humans, the skull proportions are normal and the brain size is small only because the skull is small." When you compare the two, (another example here , or look at a comparison of multiple Hominids here) you can see that H. erectus isn't ever going to be mistaken for a small-skulled H. sapiens. The pygmy H. erectus has a brain that's half the size of a regular H. erectus. Floresiensis is smart and a tool/ fire user because Homo had been doing that for 2 million years, not because its a Homo sapiens.

Summarizing species and brain sizes...

1. Last common ancestor (Gorilla, Pan, Hominid)
modern Gorilla (average 500 cc)

2. Last common ancestor (Pan, Hominid)
modern Chimp (average 400 cc)
3. Australopithecus
(375 to 550 cc)

4. Homo habilis
(500 to 800 cc)

5. Homo erectus-> ->5a.Homo floresiensis
(750 to 1225 cc) (380 cc)

6.Homo antecessor
| \ 6b. H.s. neanderthalensis (average 1450 cc)
|
6a. H. s. archaic
(average 1200 cc)
(sometimes called H. heidelbergensis)
|
7. Homo sapiens sapiens
(average 1350 cc)

Looking at Hominid species and their brain sizes, and the actual information about the fossils themselves, you can examine the differences.

While the smallest of the small modern human overlaps with non-pygmy H. erectus, as written here: "The low volume skulls were not primitive or aberrant in any way; their small volume was merely a result of the smallness of the entire skull. So although the extreme lower range of modern human brain sizes does overlap that of Homo erectus, their skulls are very different: in H. erectus, the brain case really is smaller in relation to the rest of the skull. In small modern humans, the skull proportions are normal and the brain size is small only because the skull is small." When you compare the two, (another example here , or look at a comparison of multiple Hominids here) you can see that H. erectus isn't ever going to be mistaken for a small-skulled H. sapiens. The pygmy H. erectus has a brain that's half the size of a regular H. erectus. Floresiensis is smart and a tool/ fire user because Homo had been doing that for 2 million years, not because its a Homo sapiens.

Summarizing species and brain sizes...

1. Last common ancestor (Gorilla, Pan, Hominid)
modern Gorilla (average 500 cc)

2. Last common ancestor (Pan, Hominid)
modern Chimp (average 400 cc)
3. Australopithecus
(375 to 550 cc)

4. Homo habilis
(500 to 800 cc)

5. Homo erectus-> ->5a.Homo floresiensis
(750 to 1225 cc) (380 cc)

6.Homo antecessor
| \ 6b. H.s. neanderthalensis (average 1450 cc)
|
6a. H. s. archaic
(average 1200 cc)
(sometimes called H. heidelbergensis)
|
7. Homo sapiens sapiens
(average 1350 cc)

Looking at Hominid species and their brain sizes, and the actual information about the fossils themselves, you can examine the differences.

While the smallest of the small modern human overlaps with non-pygmy H. erectus, as written here: "The low volume skulls were not primitive or aberrant in any way; their small volume was merely a result of the smallness of the entire skull. So although the extreme lower range of modern human brain sizes does overlap that of Homo erectus, their skulls are very different: in H. erectus, the brain case really is smaller in relation to the rest of the skull. In small modern humans, the skull proportions are normal and the brain size is small only because the skull is small." When you compare the two, (another example here , or look at a comparison of multiple Hominids here) you can see that H. erectus isn't ever going to be mistaken for a small-skulled H. sapiens. The pygmy H. erectus has a brain that's half the size of a regular H. erectus. Floresiensis is smart and a tool/ fire user because Homo had been doing that for 2 million years, not because its a Homo sapiens.

Summarizing species and brain sizes...

1. Last common ancestor (Gorilla, Pan, Hominid)
modern Gorilla (average 500 cc)

2. Last common ancestor (Pan, Hominid)
modern Chimp (average 400 cc)
3. Australopithecus
(375 to 550 cc)

4. Homo habilis
(500 to 800 cc)

5. Homo erectus-> ->5a.Homo floresiensis
(750 to 1225 cc) (380 cc)

6.Homo antecessor
| \ 6b. H.s. neanderthalensis (average 1450 cc)
|
6a. H. s. archaic
(average 1200 cc)
(sometimes called H. heidelbergensis)
|
7. Homo sapiens sapiens
(average 1350 cc)

Looking at Hominid species and their brain sizes, and the actual information about the fossils themselves, you can examine the differences.

While the smallest of the small modern human overlaps with non-pygmy H. erectus, as written here: "The low volume skulls were not primitive or aberrant in any way; their small volume was merely a result of the smallness of the entire skull. So although the extreme lower range of modern human brain sizes does overlap that of Homo erectus, their skulls are very different: in H. erectus, the brain case really is smaller in relation to the rest of the skull. In small modern humans, the skull proportions are normal and the brain size is small only because the skull is small." When you compare the two, (another example here , or look at a comparison of multiple Hominids here) you can see that H. erectus isn't ever going to be mistaken for a small-skulled H. sapiens. The pygmy H. erectus has a brain that's half the size of a regular H. erectus. Floresiensis is smart and a tool/ fire user because Homo had been doing that for 2 million years, not because its a Homo sapiens.

Summarizing species and brain sizes...

1. Last common ancestor (Gorilla, Pan, Hominid)
modern Gorilla (average 500 cc)

2. Last common ancestor (Pan, Hominid)
modern Chimp (average 400 cc)
3. Australopithecus
(375 to 550 cc)

4. Homo habilis
(500 to 800 cc)

5. Homo erectus-> ->5a.Homo floresiensis
(750 to 1225 cc) (380 cc)

6.Homo antecessor
| \ 6b. H.s. neanderthalensis (average 1450 cc)
|
6a. H. s. archaic
(average 1200 cc)
(sometimes called H. heidelbergensis)
|
7. Homo sapiens sapiens
(average 1350 cc)

Looking at Hominid species and their brain sizes, and the actual information about the fossils themselves, you can examine the differences.

While the smallest of the small modern human overlaps with non-pygmy H. erectus, as written here: "The low volume skulls were not primitive or aberrant in any way; their small volume was merely a result of the smallness of the entire skull. So although the extreme lower range of modern human brain sizes does overlap that of Homo erectus, their skulls are very different: in H. erectus, the brain case really is smaller in relation to the rest of the skull. In small modern humans, the skull proportions are normal and the brain size is small only because the skull is small." When you compare the two, (another example here , or look at a comparison of multiple Hominids here) you can see that H. erectus isn't ever going to be mistaken for a small-skulled H. sapiens. The pygmy H. erectus has a brain that's half the size of a regular H. erectus. Floresiensis is smart and a tool/ fire user because Homo had been doing that for 2 million years, not because its a Homo sapiens.

Summarizing species and brain sizes...

1. Last common ancestor (Gorilla, Pan, Hominid)
modern Gorilla (average 500 cc)

2. Last common ancestor (Pan, Hominid)
modern Chimp (average 400 cc)
3. Australopithecus
(375 to 550 cc)

4. Homo habilis
(500 to 800 cc)

5. Homo erectus-> ->5a.Homo floresiensis
(750 to 1225 cc) (380 cc)

6.Homo antecessor
| \ 6b. H.s. neanderthalensis (average 1450 cc)
|
6a. H. s. archaic
(average 1200 cc)
(sometimes called H. heidelbergensis)
|
7. Homo sapiens sapiens
(average 1350 cc)

Looking at Hominid species and their brain sizes, and the actual information about the fossils themselves, you can examine the differences.

While the smallest of the small modern human overlaps with non-pygmy H. erectus, as written here: "The low volume skulls were not primitive or aberrant in any way; their small volume was merely a result of the smallness of the entire skull. So although the extreme lower range of modern human brain sizes does overlap that of Homo erectus, their skulls are very different: in H. erectus, the brain case really is smaller in relation to the rest of the skull. In small modern humans, the skull proportions are normal and the brain size is small only because the skull is small." When you compare the two, (another example here , or look at a comparison of multiple Hominids here) you can see that H. erectus isn't ever going to be mistaken for a small-skulled H. sapiens. The pygmy H. erectus has a brain that's half the size of a regular H. erectus. Floresiensis is smart and a tool/ fire user because Homo had been doing that for 2 million years, not because its a Homo sapiens.

Summarizing species and brain sizes...

1. Last common ancestor (Gorilla, Pan, Hominid)
modern Gorilla (average 500 cc)

2. Last common ancestor (Pan, Hominid)
modern Chimp (average 400 cc)
3. Australopithecus
(375 to 550 cc)

4. Homo habilis
(500 to 800 cc)

5. Homo erectus-> ->5a.Homo floresiensis
(750 to 1225 cc) (380 cc)

6.Homo antecessor
| \ 6b. H.s. neanderthalensis (average 1450 cc)
|
6a. H. s. archaic
(average 1200 cc)
(sometimes called H. heidelbergensis)
|
7. Homo sapiens sapiens
(average 1350 cc)

More info on Piltdown Man: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/piltdown.html

Even the round earth theory had considerable opposition.

I hate to sound overly nitpicky, but that should be "has", not "had". To this very day, there are still people who insist that the earth is flat -- and yes, they're absolutely serious.

This is the biggest reason I don't believe in Evolution. In order for a human to have evolved from pond scum, an enormous amount of time will have to have passed.

Yes, on the order of billions of years.

Your appeal to incredulity fallacy is noted.

Given what astrophysisists claim to be the age of the Universe, this simply could not have happened.

What, because you can't bring yourself to believe it?

Statistically, Evolution is impossible (for one explanation of this, see http://www.icr.org/pubs/btg/btg-179.pdf), because it would have to allow that almost every mutation was dominant and that it was not fatal to the being it occured to.

No it wouldn't. It just requires that some beneficial mutations occur at a proper rate. Please, statistics are one of the most popular bullshit explanations to which creationists like to appeal.

The refutation to that four-page article only requires one paragraph, because the author makes a mistake that throws off his entire argument.

Interesting thought, but I don't accept it.

Well of course not. It demolishes your argument, so you pretend that it's invalid through your own arbitrary hand-waving. I expect no less from a creationist.

If a force outside of the natural environment affects the species (i.e. human intervention), then it is artificial in nature.

No, it isn't. Humans are a part of the natural universe, therefore any intervention that they bring about is natural.

"Natural selection" is using the scientific definition of "natural". Switching in the layman's definition to make an argument is dishonest.

If one were to accept your argument, then it would (by proxy) negate pretty-much everything folk like PETA and other environmental protectionists have been arguing for decades.

Well, PETA is a bunch of lunatics, but it would hardly destroy arguments for protecting the environment. While pollution is "natural" by scientific terms (being comprised of naturally occuring elements), it's still arguably more beneficial in the long run to avoid it.

The Big Bang theory is just a theory. It's a guess, based on what is observed.

If I had a nickel for every time a creationist misused the word "theory"...

I want evidence that one species became another.

Basically, Behe trotts out the "Life is complex, it required a watchmaker" argument, only on a micro-biological scale; and Johnson uses the old standby, "There are no intermediate fossils!"

Micheal Behe's "Irreducible complexity" amounts this: "I can't see how this could evolve, so it could *not* have evolved." *He* decides what is "irreducible," based on his ability to grasp how something may or may not have evolved.

This is so damned similar to the old, "But the eye is irreducibly complex! It could not have evolved in parts." When in fact, if you look at single-celled creatures with photosensitive spots on their backs, or at the pinhole camera simplicity of the nautilus eye, you can quickly see how this argument is, well, stupid.

Johnson, on the other hand, uses his skills as a lawyer to obfuscate the real issues of scientific evolution. He is, in fact, "ultra religious." He has a pre-determined outcome in mind, and it is through this bias and with the skills of rhetoric that he attempts to gut evolution.

Are there arguments between evolutionists? Yes. They do not all agree with each other on every point. Gould was an original advocate for punctuated equilibrium, which is still a point of debate. Others debate the placement of humanity on specific branches of the family tree.

This internal debate can sometimes seem like squabbling. Creationsists (fuck the term "intelligent design;" it is creationism) try to force their unscientific viewpoint into the midst of the squabble, and they call it "truth." But, it is impossible to prove or disprove creationism, and therefor it is not subject to scientific reasoning.

Anyway, both authors have an agenda that, ultimately, has nothing to do with science, and everything to do with religion.

Basically, Behe trotts out the "Life is complex, it required a watchmaker" argument, only on a micro-biological scale; and Johnson uses the old standby, "There are no intermediate fossils!"

Micheal Behe's "Irreducible complexity" amounts this: "I can't see how this could evolve, so it could *not* have evolved." *He* decides what is "irreducible," based on his ability to grasp how something may or may not have evolved.

This is so damned similar to the old, "But the eye is irreducibly complex! It could not have evolved in parts." When in fact, if you look at single-celled creatures with photosensitive spots on their backs, or at the pinhole camera simplicity of the nautilus eye, you can quickly see how this argument is, well, stupid.

Johnson, on the other hand, uses his skills as a lawyer to obfuscate the real issues of scientific evolution. He is, in fact, "ultra religious." He has a pre-determined outcome in mind, and it is through this bias and with the skills of rhetoric that he attempts to gut evolution.

Are there arguments between evolutionists? Yes. They do not all agree with each other on every point. Gould was an original advocate for punctuated equilibrium, which is still a point of debate. Others debate the placement of humanity on specific branches of the family tree.

This internal debate can sometimes seem like squabbling. Creationsists (fuck the term "intelligent design;" it is creationism) try to force their unscientific viewpoint into the midst of the squabble, and they call it "truth." But, it is impossible to prove or disprove creationism, and therefor it is not subject to scientific reasoning.

Anyway, both authors have an agenda that, ultimately, has nothing to do with science, and everything to do with religion.

we have no real evidene to support the proposed theory that one species can evolve into another,

You mean, other than the fact that we've seen it happen?

The problem of irreducible complexity,

So far, no one has conclusively shown any biological structure to be irreducibly complex.

On the other hand, evidence for creation, or intelligent design, or whatever you want to call it is increasing.

Really? Then please tell me: How do you objectively tell something that was designed from something that wasn't designed?

we have no real evidene to support the proposed theory that one species can evolve into another,

You mean, other than the fact that we've seen it happen?

The problem of irreducible complexity,

So far, no one has conclusively shown any biological structure to be irreducibly complex.

On the other hand, evidence for creation, or intelligent design, or whatever you want to call it is increasing.

Really? Then please tell me: How do you objectively tell something that was designed from something that wasn't designed?

On the contrary, there are many arguments in favour of creation or design of life.

I agree. Unfortunately, none of these arguments have any scientific merit whatsoever.

While we have numerous examples of change inside species due to evolution, we have no real evidene to support the proposed theory that one species can evolve into another, especially on the scale of micro-organisms evolving into complex creatures such as ourselves.

It's really a matter of scale. It is impossible for any one human to live long enough to observe within the timeframe required for such a drastic transformation through successive generations. The creationists seize upon this, and then insist that we can't conclude that the small changes can add up over time to become large changes because...well...because of some imaginary barrier that they've yet to justify.

The problem of irreducible complexity, put forward by scientists many years ago, does not any kind of satisfactory answer.

Obviously you've not been paying attention.

Darwinian macroevolution relies upon the idea that evolutionary changes that separate species occur in small, miniscule steps. "Irreducible complexity" is the discovered problem that many aspects of biology that are observed today (impossible to examine in Darwin's time) could not have been evolved in small steps due to the fact that numerous components, with no individual purpose, simultaneously would have had to appear in the correct patterns.

And I'm sure that you just forgot to include a specific example.

This is far from the only evidence that puts evolution into question; although Darwin claimed his theory's lack of evidence would change as more discoveries were made, there is now less evidence for species-to-species macroevolution now than there was when Darwin proposed the theory, due to new discoveries invalidating some of his original evidence.

Would you mind sparing us the common creationist babble? This is a flat-out lie. We have far more evidence for evolution in the form of the fossil record and DNA studies across species just to name two things. Darwin had never even heard of DNA.

The claim that "no new evidence for evolution has been found since Darwin's time" is an old creationist lie, told either by creation "scholars" who should know better or people who like creationist sound-bytes who don't bother doing any research of their own and thus shouldn't be talking.

On the other hand, evidence for creation, or intelligent design, or whatever you want to call it is increasing.

I'd ask for a specific cite, but you did provide one. Except that it's only one, and it's rather vague at that.

Archaeologists are trying to determine the cause of the Cambrian explosion, or "biological big bang". Rather than fossil evidence showing slow, gradual changes, the fossils of this time period show that in an extremely short period of time, nearly all major animal body types appeared.


Except that it's not "nearly all". It's quite a bit, but not "nearly all". The Cambrian Explosion is not the evolution-killer that creationists want it to be.

If any of you are interested in science for the sake of objectively discovering the truth, get an opposing viewpoint. Try picking up a copy of Lee Strobel's "The Case For A Creator". He briefly goes through about 8 of the major arguments in favour of an intelligent creation of life. He IS biased in favour of creation, but I expect most of you are biased in favour of evolution so it'll work out:).

Well, I do hope that he's better at constructing an argument for his position than you.

On the contrary, there are many arguments in favour of creation or design of life.

I agree. Unfortunately, none of these arguments have any scientific merit whatsoever.

While we have numerous examples of change inside species due to evolution, we have no real evidene to support the proposed theory that one species can evolve into another, especially on the scale of micro-organisms evolving into complex creatures such as ourselves.

It's really a matter of scale. It is impossible for any one human to live long enough to observe within the timeframe required for such a drastic transformation through successive generations. The creationists seize upon this, and then insist that we can't conclude that the small changes can add up over time to become large changes because...well...because of some imaginary barrier that they've yet to justify.

The problem of irreducible complexity, put forward by scientists many years ago, does not any kind of satisfactory answer.

Obviously you've not been paying attention.

Darwinian macroevolution relies upon the idea that evolutionary changes that separate species occur in small, miniscule steps. "Irreducible complexity" is the discovered problem that many aspects of biology that are observed today (impossible to examine in Darwin's time) could not have been evolved in small steps due to the fact that numerous components, with no individual purpose, simultaneously would have had to appear in the correct patterns.

And I'm sure that you just forgot to include a specific example.

This is far from the only evidence that puts evolution into question; although Darwin claimed his theory's lack of evidence would change as more discoveries were made, there is now less evidence for species-to-species macroevolution now than there was when Darwin proposed the theory, due to new discoveries invalidating some of his original evidence.

Would you mind sparing us the common creationist babble? This is a flat-out lie. We have far more evidence for evolution in the form of the fossil record and DNA studies across species just to name two things. Darwin had never even heard of DNA.

The claim that "no new evidence for evolution has been found since Darwin's time" is an old creationist lie, told either by creation "scholars" who should know better or people who like creationist sound-bytes who don't bother doing any research of their own and thus shouldn't be talking.

On the other hand, evidence for creation, or intelligent design, or whatever you want to call it is increasing.

I'd ask for a specific cite, but you did provide one. Except that it's only one, and it's rather vague at that.

Archaeologists are trying to determine the cause of the Cambrian explosion, or "biological big bang". Rather than fossil evidence showing slow, gradual changes, the fossils of this time period show that in an extremely short period of time, nearly all major animal body types appeared.


Except that it's not "nearly all". It's quite a bit, but not "nearly all". The Cambrian Explosion is not the evolution-killer that creationists want it to be.

If any of you are interested in science for the sake of objectively discovering the truth, get an opposing viewpoint. Try picking up a copy of Lee Strobel's "The Case For A Creator". He briefly goes through about 8 of the major arguments in favour of an intelligent creation of life. He IS biased in favour of creation, but I expect most of you are biased in favour of evolution so it'll work out:).

Well, I do hope that he's better at constructing an argument for his position than you.

> You know it's a sad day when you start missing those Monkey Island code wheels!

Ah, the good old days of the XOR data file, which was byte-code interpreted.

Kids these days with those new-fangled CD emulation tools. Back in my day we had un-photocopable paper and we liked it!

--
The evolution & "supposed" pre-ancient history of man is a crock.
One of the many proofs that intelligent pre-historic civilizations existed long BEFORE man's ancient civilizations...
1. Progression of "apparent" history of "man" - Hominidae is 3 millions years old
2. Geological Time Frames perspective
3. A machined 3D relief map 120-million years old in a 1-ton stone, with inscriptions. WTF?!