Fossils challenge old evoluton theory

Not sure if this has been posted yet, but this is interesting. It seems to be with this find, we might have to change the pattern of human evolution.

news.yahoo.com...

"The discovery by Meave Leakey, a member of a famous family of paleontologists, shows that two species of early human ancestors lived at the same time in Kenya. That pokes holes in the chief theory of man's early evolution — that one of those species evolved from the other.

And it further discredits that iconic illustration of human evolution that begins with a knuckle-dragging ape and ends with a briefcase-carrying man."

Change the pattern?

More like blow the whole theory wide open! From what I'm reading all the "evolutionists" are scrambling because they are wrong and now have to come up with something to cover their A's.

When are people going to realize and accept intelligent design?

All I can say is HA!

Science lays another egg!

Hey liberal God haters? Where are you?

[edit on 9-8-2007 by jbondo]

Is that last thread a joke? Tell me you are kidding and you really believe in evolution. I think you are just having me on.

Originally posted by jbondo
Change the pattern?

More like blow the whole theory wide open! From what I'm reading all the "evolutionists" are scrambling because they are wrong and now have to come up with something to cover their A's.

When are people going to realize and accept intelligent design?

All I can say is HA!

Science lays another egg!

Hey liberal God haters? Where are you?

Errm, yeah. OK.

We find that Homo Habilis existed alongside Erectus, and that blows the whole thing open...

Don't be silly. Like any good science, new findings will be taken in to current knowledge. Don't see any evidence for ID here.

You're not a good advertisment for ID, remember, it's not meant to be about religion...

HA

Originally posted by jbondo
When are people going to realize and accept intelligent design?

In a word, never. I don't believe in Magic and I don't believe in religion. Intelligent design is religion in sheep's clothing.

I like how you pick and choose what to talk about in the article, and spin it to make it look like this article basically throws the idea of evolution into upheaval. It doesn't do that at all. It changes the model a bit, sure. This article states that we once thought homo sapiens evolved from neanderthals. We know better now, and we've changed it.

So homo habilis did NOT evolve into homo erectus. So they appear to have lived side-by-side for at least 500,000 years. How does that prove intelligent design, or even allude to it in any way?

This is my favorite part of the article that you decided not to acknowledge:

"This is not questioning the idea at all of evolution; it is regining some of the specific points," Anton said. "This is a great example of what science does and religion doesn't do. It's a continuous self-testing process."

So please, enlighten me. How exactly should this discovery lead to the acceptance of intelligent design?

Originally posted by jbondo
Hey liberal God haters? Where are you?

I'm not a liberal and I don't hate God. I also find it interesting that a non-liberal God-lover has decided to start casting stones. I bet people who follow science will ultimately be vilified by the time this thread dies down.

Do you constantly seek to downgrade your intellectual opposition because you yourself aren't confident in your choice of belief? I'm 100% comfortable with the fact that i don't have all the answers. I'm not nearly so arrogant as to assume that i live in the age where humans have all the answers, when we so clearly don't.

Originally posted by The Cyfre
So homo habilis did NOT evolve into homo erectus. So they appear to have lived side-by-side for at least 500,000 years.

The research can't even claim that. It's just another load of shoddy media reporting.

It is quite possible that Erectus evolved from an isolated group of Habilis, just that they co-existed for a period. The idea that evolution is a linear progression was always a fallacy. Not a linear tree, but a nice branchy bush thing

Still to this day, no evolutionist can explain how life started...They can not explain how the first cell came about, how the first amino acids formed to make the first protein....

Originally posted by edsinger
Still to this day

Heh, we've known about DNA for a few decades. Religion has had thousands of years, still nothing of note.

Oh, yeah. Pi = 3...

Religion blows, what a crock. I dont really see how this blows evolution out of the water...way to try and reiterate to yourselves that what you believe is true, hang on by that thread though.

Originally posted by edsinger
Still to this day, no evolutionist can explain how life started...They can not explain how the first cell came about, how the first amino acids formed to make the first protein....

This has already been explained several times in your own thread, are you pretending not to understand?

Originally posted by melatonin

Originally posted by The Cyfre
So homo habilis did NOT evolve into homo erectus. So they appear to have lived side-by-side for at least 500,000 years.

The research can't even claim that. It's just another load of shoddy media reporting.

It is quite possible that Erectus evolved from an isolated group of Habilis, just that they co-existed for a period. The idea that evolution is a linear progression was always a fallacy. Not a linear tree, but a nice branchy bush thing

Not only did these two co-exist but the female suggests both of these "supposedly" humanoid missing links are more closely related to to modern gorillas and chimpanzees.

www.cnn.com...

[edit on 9-8-2007 by Bugman82]

Originally posted by edsinger
Still to this day, no evolutionist can explain how life started...They can not explain how the first cell came about, how the first amino acids formed to make the first protein....

i've told this to you at least half a dozen times, that's CHEMICAL ABIOGENESIS, something seperate from the theory of evolution. evolution deals with the first fully functioning thing that can be classified as "life"

Originally posted by melatonin

Originally posted by edsinger
Still to this day

Heh, we've known about DNA for a few decades. Religion has had thousands of years, still nothing of note.

Oh, yeah. Pi = 3...

OH SNAP!

Doesn't the Bible clearly state that Moses was a Homo Erectus? I'm pretty sure that it does, although, seriously, who ever bothered to actually read the Bible?

When are the archeologists going to find fossils of the ancient super hominids who discovered faster than light space travel? Not just some more hulking little monkey men.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

It's known that Neanderthals and Homo Sapiens lived side by side for a while too. So personally, I don't find this news very controversial. The species split into two, both groups survived for a while, and one eventually died out and the other evolved further. Fair enough.

I could imagine that having competing proto-human species would push the competition for dominance, and so encourage increase in the size of the brain. A Brain Arms Race, if you like. Survival of the Smartest.

The evolutionary story of Humanity gained a bit more detail with this discovery. That's all.

Originally posted by madnessinmysouli've told this to you at least half a dozen times, that's CHEMICAL ABIOGENESIS, something seperate from the theory of evolution. evolution deals with the first fully functioning thing that can be classified as "life"

No that was your explanation and I will again state the FACT that evolution at its roots claims there is no need for God or a creator that life could have occurred of given the time by CHANCE.

There is a big difference between micro and macro evolution. The common story of the moths is an example. Life will adapt on conditions.

Evolution can not explain the jump between species. The sudden changes. There are no examples of fossils that show a developing feather, just feathers.

You have not proved your point. You dismiss irreducible complexity as if you have proven it wrong. You haven't.

I guess this disproves evolution in the same way that dogs and wolves living side by side disproves evolution

As the YECs and others consistently refuse to understand (they must have evolved a deafness gene or summat) evolution doesn't mean one entire species turning into another. It means one group of a species changing over time until it becomes genetically different. However, there is no reason whatsoever why other members of the species shouldn't remain unchanged. ie some of species A evolves into species B. some of species A stays the same. Species A and B then co-exist. Simple.

It may be the habilis and erectus are different branches from an earlier hominid - as neanderthal and modern man are different branches that evolved from erectus. But I fail to see how this discovery in any way refutes the possibly that one group of habilis evolved into erectus, whilst others did not.

Originally posted by edsinger
No that was your explanation and I will again state the FACT that evolution at its roots claims there is no need for God or a creator that life could have occurred of given the time by CHANCE.

Depends what you mean by chance. If you mean non-directed, then yeah. If you mean completely random, then, no. Physics and chemistry are not random in the case of abiogensis; and for the theory of evolution, natural selection is not random.

Futhermore, evolution at its roots claims no such thing. You are still misrepresenting the theory of evolution.

There are no examples of fossils that show a developing feather, just feathers.

Dilong Paradoxus

Xu, X., Norell, M. A., Kuang, X., Wang, X., Zhao, Q., Jia, C. (2004). "Basal tyrannosauroids from China and evidence for protofeathers in tyrannosauroids". Nature 431: 680-684.


[edit on 10-8-2007 by melatonin]

Originally posted by The Cyfre
In a word, never. I don't believe in Magic and I don't believe in religion. Intelligent design is religion in sheep's clothing.

Why is it that when we're talking about creation (yea, I said it! I'm not ashamed of that nor trying to hide behind anything) it's "magic" even though evolution of man has never been proven? Where is your "magic" missing link?

I like how you pick and choose what to talk about in the article, and spin it to make it look like this article basically throws the idea of evolution into upheaval. It doesn't do that at all. It changes the model a bit, sure. This article states that we once thought homo sapiens evolved from neanderthals. We know better now, and we've changed it.

I didn't spin anything! You've got a PC hooked to the internet too. In fact the monitor is right in front of your face. Why would I pick and choose knowing that anyone can just click the link and read the entire article or others like it?
It is my belief that I did not evolve from an ape and I believe this is just one of many examples to come that will in time prove me right.

So homo habilis did NOT evolve into homo erectus. So they appear to have lived side-by-side for at least 500,000 years. How does that prove intelligent design, or even allude to it in any way?

I never said it proved anything. Obviously I was excited at the prospect of science actually admitting albeit partially that they are mistaken in regards to evolution. Of course my hope is that some day Intelligent Design will be proven and whether you accept it or not this is an example and step toward that end.

"This is not questioning the idea at all of evolution; it is regining some of the specific points," Anton said. "This is a great example of what science does and religion doesn't do. It's a continuous self-testing process."

OK, here's your "spin". An example of cover your A science speak.

So please, enlighten me. How exactly should this discovery lead to the acceptance of intelligent design?

Because it's an example of evolution of man being wrong. As I said, it's just one more point that will in the end prove "ID", "creation", "God".

Listen, I do believe in some forms of limited evolution (being born with no wisdom teeth) but not that one species morphs into another and certainly not Ape to Man. Genetically speaking you could make an argument that we evolved from earthworms as well but I don't think you believe that.

I'm not a liberal and I don't hate God. I also find it interesting that a non-liberal God-lover has decided to start casting stones. I bet people who follow science will ultimately be vilified by the time this thread dies down.

Did I single you out and call you a liberal God hater? Yes I cast stones at liberal God haters but that doesn't mean I don't have empathy in my heart for them. I don't have anything against them, just their beliefs that I disagree with. So too when engaged in discussion will I respect them. As I am right here with you.

"Vilified"?!? So, in other words you are hoping that there is no God? Because that is ultimately what you are saying with that statement. What gets me is that Atheists are so obsessed with proving God to not exist that it's like they don't want God to exists even if He does. This is twisted to me....By the way, I'm not labeling you an Atheist or anything else with that statement.

Do you constantly seek to downgrade your intellectual opposition because you yourself aren't confident in your choice of belief? I'm 100% comfortable with the fact that i don't have all the answers. I'm not nearly so arrogant as to assume that i live in the age where humans have all the answers, when we so clearly don't.

Now you are spinning. There are times when I question my Faith, of course. I'm only human and I don't have all the answers nor do I remember saying that I did. An imperfect human such as myself can't help but question on occasion, I will never deny that.

I seldom comment in these threads because they get over run. So I do not constantly seek anything in this forum. If something catches my eye and I have a comment, I post. That's all there is to it. You know, we Christians get tired of being attacked at every turn and insulted to the point of either leaving a thread or fighting back with the same ammo. Sometimes even the nicest people get fed up to the point of shooting back a little of what they've had to swallow for so long.

Yea, maybe I was a bit over the top yesterday but there are times when I feel I have little choice. If you took it personally and I offended you I apologize. Most of the time I disclaim my posts like that with "JMO" at the bottom. Every time I forget I get jumped. I can take quite allot of abuse but I will not deny my beliefs.

Originally posted by SuicideVirus
Doesn't the Bible clearly state that Moses was a Homo Erectus?

You'd really have to show me that one.