Ancient Stone Tool Find Suggests Mystery Human Species

a reply to: peter vlar

Surely if what you claim is scientifically correct the theory would no longer be a theory?
My understanding of alleged evolution is that it has been proven to be both selective and random chance is that not correct?
Evolution occurs through natural selection which is what I was taught at school, when a creatures' habitat changes they either evolve to cope & survive or perish. is this now wrong information?
Humans are no longer evolving as far as I have read so does that not indicate there is no need to and does it not indicate that a mutation doesn't mean evolution?
I believe that it wouldn't be possible for say one lion to evolve whilst the others didn't in the same area. Evolution to me isn't individual but get the impression that's what you are saying that evolution is just down to genetics and yet despite many human genetic mutations, we have not and are not evolving
I understand your point about mutations but I'm sure it was said that it wasn't mutations but simply variations. Does what you are saying mean that you consider hybrids for example as evolved?

What are apes? Erm large primates?

originally posted by: PhyllidaDavenport
a reply to: peter vlar

Surely if what you claim is scientifically correct the theory would no longer be a theory?

EVOLUTION AS FACT AND THEORY

Your understanding of the scientific terminology of a theory needs an update

A hypothesis is an explanation for something which occurs which hasn't been proven
A theory is a hypothesis which has been tested and found to be true, so something being explained as a theory, means that it is correct, something being described as a hypothesis means that it hasn't been proven

This is a common mistake made in fringe circles where every piece of nonsense is described incorrectly as a theory in an attempt to give it some weight

a reply to: SLAYER69

As Always Stay tuned.

And for good reason I say.

I had just finished a reply about the Ancient Australians and then I read this so I felt the need to parrot myself. There is rock art in Australia that has been dated at 40.000 years old at the least-some sources have claimed that occupation could've gone as far back as 60,000 years. In that time the Ancient Aussies could have encountered another group of 'humanoids' and maybe, just maybe there are stories from the dream time that speak of little folk.

a reply to: Marduk

But is not a scientific theory just a broad encompassing explanation for whatever....from what is known at the particular time and as a result is constantly being redefined? As such surely it IS still theory as it stands now or in fact, a current belief system held by a number of intellectuals? At any one point further evidence could arise which will blow that belief out of the water and as we know science is constantly having to re-define itself as a result of further discoveries, therefore how can it be said to anything but theoretical until actual provable observable evidence exists?

I am aware that creationists state the there is no such thing because no-one has seen it happen...I don't subscribe to that point of view either, however I had always thought that for something to no longer be a theory it had to be observable.

Maybe one of you more learned people could answer me this question...why has there never been evidence of any "cross-over" species showing transition from one "species" to another? No fossil record or anything exists to suggest that evolution in the way scientists mean, is an actual phenomenon. Thanks

originally posted by: PhyllidaDavenport
a reply to: Marduk
But is not a scientific theory just a broad encompassing explanation for whatever....from what is known at the particular time and as a result is constantly being redefined? As such surely it IS still theory as it stands now or in fact, a current belief system held by a number of intellectuals? At any one point further evidence could arise which will blow that belief out of the water and as we know science is constantly having to re-define itself as a result of further discoveries, therefore how can it be said to anything but theoretical until actual provable observable evidence exists?

A theory is an explanation for something. As it stands this theory has been proven 100% correct, everything about evolution is so well understood, which is why it is called both a theory and a fact.

originally posted by: PhyllidaDavenport
I am aware that creationists state the there is no such thing because no-one has seen it happen...I don't subscribe to that point of view either, however I had always thought that for something to no longer be a theory it had to be observable.

No, the needs to be observed claim is what the creationists say, not what science does.

This misconception encompasses two incorrect ideas: (1) that all science depends on controlled laboratory experiments, and (2) that evolution cannot be studied with such experiments. First, many scientific investigations do not involve experiments or direct observation. Astronomers cannot hold stars in their hands and geologists cannot go back in time, but both scientists can learn a great deal about the universe through observation and comparison. In the same way, evolutionary biologists can test their ideas about the history of life on Earth by making observations in the real world. Second, though we can't run an experiment that will tell us how the dinosaur lineage radiated, we can study many aspects of evolution with controlled experiments in a laboratory setting. In organisms with short generation times (e.g., bacteria or fruit flies), we can actually observe evolution in action over the course of an experiment. And in some cases, biologists have observed evolution occurring in the wild.

evolution.berkeley.edu...

originally posted by: PhyllidaDavenport
Maybe one of you more learned people could answer me this question...why has there never been evidence of any "cross-over" species showing transition from one "species" to another? No fossil record or anything exists to suggest that evolution in the way scientists mean, is an actual phenomenon. Thanks

Here is a list of Transitional fossils, which is the scientific name for "missing link"
You are claiming that these don't exist

again, all your misunderstandings are parroting those of creationists.

originally posted by: PhyllidaDavenport
...I had always thought that for something to no longer be a theory it had to be observable.

Things that are observable are called data.

A theory is a logically consistent explanation for the data (the observed facts.)

No scientific theory can ever turn into a fact. Theories can be supported by new facts, or they can be eroded by new facts.

In science, the term "theory" means the observation-supported explanation. When new observations come along that indicate otherwise, the theory can evolve (pun intended.) But it cannot possibly turn into a fact. This is logically (and philosophically) impossible.

Harte

originally posted by: Harte

No scientific theory can ever turn into a fact.

Evolution as fact and theory

In science, a "fact" typically refers to an observation, measurement, or other form of evidence that can be expected to occur the same way under similar circumstances. However, scientists also use the term "fact" to refer to a scientific explanation that has been tested and confirmed so many times that there is no longer a compelling reason to keep testing it or looking for additional examples. In that respect, the past and continuing occurrence of evolution is a scientific fact.

www.nas.edu...

originally posted by: Marduk

originally posted by: Harte

No scientific theory can ever turn into a fact.

Evolution as fact and theory

In science, a "fact" typically refers to an observation, measurement, or other form of evidence that can be expected to occur the same way under similar circumstances. However, scientists also use the term "fact" to refer to a scientific explanation that has been tested and confirmed so many times that there is no longer a compelling reason to keep testing it or looking for additional examples. In that respect, the past and continuing occurrence of evolution is a scientific fact.

www.nas.edu...

From your link:

However, like all scientific theories, the theory of evolution is subject to continuing refinement as new areas of science emerge or as new technologies enable observations and experiments that were not possible previously.

As I said. Theories "evolve."

Harte

originally posted by: Harte

As I said. Theories "evolve."

Harte

Don't have a problem with your claim that theories evolve, just your claim that no scientific theory can be a fact. That a theory can evolve with new understanding does not mean that it is redundant, Evolution started with the observable facts from Darwin, and has further evolved, it is still a fact.

originally posted by: Marduk

originally posted by: Harte

As I said. Theories "evolve."

Harte

Don't have a problem with your claim that theories evolve, just your claim that no scientific theory can be a fact. That a theory can evolve with new understanding does not mean that it is redundant, Evolution started with the observable facts from Darwin, and has further evolved, it is still a fact.

The observation that evolution is factual isn't the same as an observation that the (current) Theory of Evolution is factual.

Evolution is certainly a fact. But the explanation for evolution can only ever be a theory, no matter how well it is supported.
That is the nature of inductive reasoning.

Harte

originally posted by: peter vlar
a reply to: randyvs

there is a huge chasm between having physical remains to work with and test while forming hypothesis and taking mistranslated scripture at face value because of confirmation bias. There are physical remains of H. Floresiensis. There are no remains of "giants" that are not within the scope of what H. Sapiens Sapiens can physically grow to.

Oh yes there are! They are just not put on display in museums but stored away in the basement so as not to upset the Darwinina paradigm and the "out of Africa" theory. And they are NOT merely pathological examples of isolated gigantism, either. There are HUNDREDS of such cases recorded in newspapers but quickly withdrawn from public view.

originally posted by: PhyllidaDavenport


Maybe one of you more learned people could answer me this question...why has there never been evidence of any "cross-over" species showing transition from one "species" to another? No fossil record or anything exists to suggest that evolution in the way scientists mean, is an actual phenomenon. Thanks

Actually, the fossil record is full of 'transitional' fossils...

originally posted by: micpsi

Oh yes there are! They are just not put on display in museums but stored away in the basement so as not to upset the Darwinina paradigm and the "out of Africa" theory. And they are NOT merely pathological examples of isolated gigantism, either. There are HUNDREDS of such cases recorded in newspapers but quickly withdrawn from public view.


Sheesh.

*bats head against brick wall*

originally posted by: micpsi

Oh yes there are! They are just not put on display in museums but stored away in the basement so as not to upset the Darwinina paradigm and the "out of Africa" theory. And they are NOT merely pathological examples of isolated gigantism, either. There are HUNDREDS of such cases recorded in newspapers but quickly withdrawn from public view.

I'd be interested to see your evidence of this ?
As you claim hundreds, there must be loads of evidence to support that, otherwise I'm sure you wouldn't have said it. So do some research and then post it

I found these two links which seem like a good start
www.jasoncolavito.com...
www.jasoncolavito.com...

perhaps when you have the truth you could start a new thread...

originally posted by: micpsi
[

Oh yes there are! They are just not put on display in museums but stored away in the basement

No, all the giant bones are still in the museums and on full display. They are now attributed to the correct taxonomic specimen much to the dismay of Apologetics.

so as not to upset the Darwinina paradigm and the "out of Africa" theory.

As OOA only deals with the genetic diaspora of Homo Sapiens Sapiens across the world, giants wouldn't affect it in any way. Nor would they affect any aspects of MES.

And they are NOT merely pathological examples of isolated gigantism, either.

I for one, am quite thoroughly impressed at your unparalleled ability to qualify a definitive forensic result without ever seeing these magical remains.

There are HUNDREDS of such cases recorded in newspapers but quickly withdrawn from public view.

The last time I was at my mothers house, I was going through boxes of stuff I had in Storage. Within the stack I found one box that was filled to the top with Newspapers depicting the most recent exploits of Batboy so it must be true right? Tabloid and yellow journalism goes all the way back to the time of printing Pamphlets as propaganda shortly after printing presses became more common.

originally posted by: Harte

The observation that evolution is factual isn't the same as an observation that the (current) Theory of Evolution is factual.

Evolution is certainly a fact. But the explanation for evolution can only ever be a theory, no matter how well it is supported.
That is the nature of inductive reasoning.

Harte

This is essentially what I've been trying to get across to people, that evolution as a biological process is a fact. No If's ands or but's. While biological evolution is indeed factual, Modern Evolutionary Synthesis is the theory attempting to explain HOW evolution actually works and as new data is compiled, aspects of MES may have to be altered to conform to what is known. MES is the best explanation, based on all of the observable and testable data currently known, that details how evolution actually works.

originally posted by: SLAYER69
Ancient Stone Tool Find Suggests Mystery Human Species

Ancient stone tools from an archaeological site on Sulawesi have pushed back the date of the earliest human occupation of the Indonesian island to at least 118,000 years ago.

The discovery, published today in Nature, overturns the view that humans first entered the island between 50,000 and 60,000 years ago as Homo sapiens dispersed out of Africa on the way to Australia.

Instead the finding suggests an ancient human species inhabited the island well before Homo sapiens arrived.

Ok here we go

It appears this discovery will further shake things up, our human family tree is rather more like an angry gnarled bush.

Lead author Dr Gerrit van den Bergh, from the University of Wollongong, said it was likely this earlier inhabitant was related to the dwarf-sized hobbit (Homo floresiensis) — whose fossils were found more than a decade ago on the nearby island of Flores.

So it might be related to the hobbit and the age seems to be very conservative, more like 200,000 years but they are playing it safe.

This estimate was then supported by uranium dating of enamel on tooth fossils found at the site, which gave them a minimum age of 200,000 years old. Dr van den Bergh said although the Nature paper put the date of earliest human occupation at 118,000 years ago, this was a "very conservative" estimate.

I've felt there were more lines to be discovered and hopefully more remains found and possibly even viable DNA for further testing.

As Always Stay tuned.

Should of went with ancient stone tool instead of God thief.

reply to: SLAYER69

Do we know with certainty that this was a different "species", i.e., with a gene pool incapable of breeding with today's humans?

originally posted by: Origyptian
reply to: SLAYER69

Do we know with certainty that this was a different "species", i.e., with a gene pool incapable of breeding with today's humans?

Inability to breed with another animal is not a species criterion.

Harte

originally posted by: PhyllidaDavenport
a reply to: peter vlar

Surely if what you claim is scientifically correct the theory would no longer be a theory?

No, the theory serves to show the HOW of evolution, how it works. Gravity is also a theory but I don't see anyone trying to jump off of the Empire State Building to demonstrate its errors. There is no hierarchy such as Scientific Theory becoming a Scientific Law. In Science, Laws and Theories have different functions.

My understanding of alleged evolution is that it has been proven to be both selective and random chance is that not correct?

Natural selection and random mutation are both mechanisms of evolution. There is also Punctuated Equilibrium, Genetic Drift as well as the effects of migration, or in humans trade and exploration. All of the above contribute to frequency of allele changes within a given population.

Evolution occurs through natural selection which is what I was taught at school, when a creatures' habitat changes they either evolve to cope & survive or perish. is this now wrong information?

Whet you describe there isn't natural selection, it is a paraphrasing of "Survival of the Fittest". Neither Natural Selection nor Genetic Drift can not occur without genetic variation having already occurred.

Humans are no longer evolving as far as I have read so does that not indicate there is no need to and does it not indicate that a mutation doesn't mean evolution?

I'm not sure where you read that, or how long ago the material was printed but off the top of my head we have found that some people are naturally immune to HIV/AIDS.
the sickle cell gene is prevalent in areas with high instances of Malaria and non existent in others. The gene for lactose persistence is a very recent development. It is also evidence for convergent evolution. While the farmers who cared for the cattle adapted to and were able to produce lactose beyond the ages of 4-6 when all human children are typically weened off of feeding from their mothers but their cattle had also evolved alongside then, producing milk with lower levels of lactose making it easier for the humans to digest it. A recent 2006 study has shown that ~95% of people of European descent are able to produce the enzyme that digests lactose into adulthood.
We are losing our wisdom teeth. Approximately 35% of people are born without them these days.
1800 new genes have been produced that didn't prior to 40Ka. These particular genes are specifically devoted to fighting off infectious diseases.
Blue eyes never existed prior to 6-10Ka
Cranial capacity is less now than it was when our ancestors first left Africa.

I believe that it wouldn't be possible for say one lion to evolve whilst the others didn't in the same area.

What about the elephants who have started to grow shorter tusks in response to poaching? Smaller tusks make them less of a target and are less valuable to poachers. Back to your analogy, small incremental changes build up over time. Evolution does not postulate that mother A mates with Father B and ends up with child Z1, a fully new species. That's not how evolution works.

Evolution to me isn't individual but get the impression that's what you are saying that evolution is just down to genetics and yet despite many human genetic mutations, we have not and are not evolving

We do and we are evolving. Without mutations, there is nothing for nature to select for. Humanity would be unchanged from the time the first AMH decided to cross into the Levant and the Arabian Peninsula. I'm not saying it's totally down to genetics but without genetic changes, nothing else can change. Additionally, evolution is measured across entire populations, not on an individual level. This isn't the X-Men were talking about!

I understand your point about mutations but I'm sure it was said that it wasn't mutations but simply variations.

I can't really address this without some sort of context. Where did you see/read this? Selection pressure is typically a fairly servitude process, genetic variation typically arises when there are fewer pressures on huge organism to change. The Khoi-San people and Australian Aboriginals have far greater genetic variation than doNorthern Europeans for example.

Does what you are saying mean that you consider hybrids for example as evolved?

No, they are hybrids. If you were to come up with viable offspring who could physically reproduce they could, in time, become a new species. I'm not sure if Ligers or Tigon for example, are able to mate with each other

What are apes? Erm large primates?

Apes are old world, tailless, anthropoid catarrhine primates who are native to Africa and South East Asia. I'll just stick to the Great Apes which include Gorillas, Chimpanzee, Bonobo, Orangutan and Homo Sapiens Sapiens. All of the above listed organisms share a common ancestry. Humans and Chimpanzee for example diverged ~6-8 Ma and Bonobos diverged from Chimpanzee about 1.5 Ma. We were not descended from any of the above. All are share descent with a common ancestor.