Closest Human Ancestor May Rewrite Steps in Our Evolution, page 2

privacy

Pages: << 1 2 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 7 times

reply posted on 8-9-2011 @ 03:08 PM by Daemonicon

reply to post by GmoS719

Out of curiosity, may I ask what leads you to this? For instance, is it a religious belief that makes you doubt evolution or is it a particular piece of evidence that doesn't sit right with you? Again, just curious, no offense intended.

reply posted on 8-9-2011 @ 03:23 PM by john_bmth

Originally posted by GmoS719
reply to post by john_bmth

How is my statement about evolution not being fact, false?
It isn't a fact.
It does have evidence to back it up, but so did hundred of theories which were later proven to be wrong.
Evolution hasn't been proven to be wrong yet, but I think eventually it will be.

For the third time already:
1. Only in mathematics can you prove anything.
2. The scientific THEORY of evolution explains the scientific FACTS that support and demonstrate evolution.

The statement "evolution is both a theory and a fact" is often seen in biological literature. Evolution is a "theory" in the scientific sense of the term "theory"; it is an established scientific model of a portion of the universe that generates propositions with observational consequences. Such a model both helps generate new research and helps us understand observed phenomena. When scientists say "evolution is a fact", they are using one of two meanings of the word "fact". One meaning is empirical: evolution can be observed through changes in allele frequencies or traits of a population over successive generations. Another way "fact" is used is to refer to a certain kind of theory, one that has been so powerful and productive for such a long time that it is universally accepted by scientists. When scientists say evolution is a fact in this sense, they mean it is a fact that all living organisms have descended from a common ancestor (or ancestral gene pool) [8] even though this cannot be directly observed. This implies more tangibly that it is a fact that humans share a common ancestor with all living organisms.

reply posted on 8-9-2011 @ 04:20 PM by GmoS719

Originally posted by Daemonicon
reply to post by GmoS719

Out of curiosity, may I ask what leads you to this? For instance, is it a religious belief that makes you doubt evolution or is it a particular piece of evidence that doesn't sit right with you? Again, just curious, no offense intended.

It isn't a religious belief. I do think evolution is possible. I just don't believe that it is the case.
IMO, the theory of evolution isn't reliable when it is having to be rewritten over and over again
With each new piece of evidence.
Is there plenty of evidence to suggest the validity of evolution? Yes.
Do I believe in evolution? No.
Scientist have failed to provide us with the "missing link".
With out it, they have nothing that can persuade me to believe that evolution is real.

edit on 8-9-2011 by GmoS719 because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 8-9-2011 @ 04:54 PM by Xcalibur254

reply to post by AugustusMasonicus

I know. I just know that people wouldn't actually read the article and then they'd see things like the remains are 2 million years old and then start complaining how they thought humans were only 200,000 years old. Then it would go into a whole long argument with names like Cremo and Sitchin being mentioned. I was just hoping to prevent some of that by clarifying things right away.

reply posted on 8-9-2011 @ 05:03 PM by Xcalibur254

reply to post by GmoS719

The fact of the matter is that with every new piece of data that is found supports the theory of evolution. When Darwin first published his theory he didn't know about genetics or punctuated equilibrium. However, with the discovery of these things it only made the theory of evolution stronger. The same goes with the entire fossil record. Every new species we discover through fossils fits right in with evolution.

As for the "missing link," there really isn't such a thing. It is essentially a term used mainly by Creationists and its definition is constantly changing. We have a complete fossil record from modern Homo sapiens all the way back to before Australopithecus africanus, which is several million years. In the course of 150 years there has been no new data that has weakened the theory of evolution in anyway. It has only been strengthened.

reply posted on 8-9-2011 @ 05:09 PM by Daemonicon

reply to post by Xcalibur254

Great post, you beat me to it.

There is not A SINGLE "Missing Link" between early human, and early ape. There are, however, several transitional forms as pointed out by Xcalibur.

The transitional forms include:

Homo Antecessor
Homo Cepranensis
Homo Erectus
Homo Ergaster
Homo Floresiensis
Homo Gautengensis
Homo Georgicus
Homo habilis
Homo Heidelbergensis
Homo Neanderthalensis
Homo rhodesiensis
Homo rudolfensis
Homo Sapiens Idaltu
Homo Sapiens Sapiens

I wonder, however, which is the missing link that is needed?

reply posted on 8-9-2011 @ 05:10 PM by GmoS719

reply to post by Xcalibur254

I didn't come from an ape! you hear!
No but really, this could go on forever.
Lets end it here.
One love.

reply posted on 8-9-2011 @ 05:17 PM by Daemonicon

reply to post by GmoS719

You are correct, you did not come from an ape

You, however, did have a common cousin with an ape

I agree, this could go on forever...and ever....and ever.

reply posted on 8-9-2011 @ 08:27 PM by flyingfish

There is no such thing as a missing link, the evolutionary road to modern sapiens is more complicated than caveman to subway commuters. The so called " rewriting" of evolution is more like adding evidence to the mountains that already exist.
Direct studies of ancient DNA from Neanderthal bones prove interbreeding did occur, but what had happened in Africa remained a mystery .. until now.
In a paper published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), a team led by Michael Hammer. It provides evidence that anatomically modern humans were not so unique that they remained separate.

"We found evidence for hybridization between modern humans and archaic forms in Africa. It looks like our lineage has always exchanged genes with their more morphologically diverged neighbors," said Hammer, who also holds appointments in the UA's department ofecology and evolutionary biology, the school of anthropology, the BIO5 Institute and the Arizona Cancer Center. Hammer added that recent advances in molecular biology have made it possible to extract DNA from fossils tens of thousands of years old and compare it to that of modern counterparts.

The paper
Link

reply posted on 8-9-2011 @ 09:09 PM by darkendmetal

Originally posted by GmoS719
reply to post by AugustusMasonicus

This just goes to show you.
The theory of evolution is flawed.
Pretty soon they will find a fossil that links us to rats.

that is the beauty of science...we are always learning more and more... compared to the sky daddy know all theories lol

reply posted on 8-9-2011 @ 10:51 PM by flyingfish

Scientist have failed to provide us with the "missing link". With out it, they have nothing that can persuade me to believe that evolution is real.

reply to post by GmoS719

Science does not use persuasion, data collected is used to verify or disprove a particular hypothesis.
The failure here is that you must first understand the data, you will find there is no need to persuade absolutes when you look at the science.

edit on 8-9-2011 by flyingfish because: (no reason given)

Pages: << 1 2 >> ^^TOP^^