Out of Africa?

[Rockstar]

When evolutionists can tell show me at what point did a mere piece of matter become a conscience animated being I will be interested in what they have to say.

Reading things like this article just tells me they are more interested in defending their egos and funding than exploring other possibilities. Just think how much the Smithsonian alone has invested in all those displays. They cant afford to entertain other ideas.

[Dowly]

[Mr Quatro]

I can't really understand who 'they' are ... all I know is that 'they' have been telling me what 'they' think for a long time now, but 'they' aren't always right, so I think 'they' should have their own web page where 'they' can explain what 'they' think and leave us normal people alone.

[Rockstar]

Originally Posted by Dowly

How did the writer conclude the 2 million year old tools found in China really are from immigrants that latest evidence suggest left Africa 60,000 years ago? Where did he get the idea that to force the theory to fit these African immigrants MUST have left earlier than latest evidence indicates or first thought? All I'm saying is the article doesn't make sense TOO ME.

Wouldn't the latest discovery in China make the writer think just for a moment of the possibility that maybe, just maybe East Asia or another location other than Africa may be the well spring of life? Hence my remark how places like the Smithsonian cant afford to entertain other ideas.

Do you have opinion thought or idea on the matter?

[Dowly]

Originally Posted by Rockstar

Do you have opinion thought or idea on the matter?

None. I was replying to your second post.

[Rockstar]

Originally Posted by Dowly

None. I was replying to your second post.

Oh, I see. Desiring to hear evolutionists explain how a mere piece of matter became a conscience animated being is a low I.Q. question? Or was it my opinion they are more interested in protecting ego and funds than entertaining other ideas. Such as the possibility Africa may not be the cradle of humankind?

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Rockstar

When evolutionists can tell show me at what point did a mere piece of matter become a conscience animated being I will be interested in what they have to say.

This shows me that you don't really understand what the Theory of Evolution is about. "Evolutionists" study how life changes, not how it originated. Any good scientist lives with the constant awareness that today's pet theory might become tomorrow's laughingstock. The purpose is to discover and try to explain how things work. They know they might be wrong, but for today all any dedicated scientist can do is look at the evidence and attempt to discover what offers the best explanation.

Reading things like this article just tells me they are more interested in defending their egos and funding than exploring other possibilities. Just think how much the Smithsonian alone has invested in all those displays. They cant afford to entertain other ideas.

What other possibilities would you have them explore? What you don't seem to grasp is that the scientist who discovers they've all been wrong all these years isn't going to lose anything. He or She rather will lauded, honored and respected, given a Nobel Prize and all that. Scientists live to find new things, not to defend their egos. Well, yes, ego would have a lot to do with it, but it would be the pride of changing the way we look at the world, not the covering up of treasured beliefs.

[Sailor Steve]

As for Africa being the starting point, you could find out everything you wanted to know about it, if you were really interested. This is only the tip of the iceberg, but it's a good starting point, especially the section on "Mitochondrial Haplogroups".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recent..._modern_humans

[Dowly]

Your (Rockstar) signature quote is also wrong.


https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Ilya_P...#Misattributed

[Rhodes]

Out of Africa was something that I was hit in the head since 2000. At least with the Piltdown Man, it was simple. It was him and period, because, shut up!


Our Genus - Homo, is now dated to 2 million years BC. 60.000 years is our kind Homo Sapiens, as Steve refered and even that can be debatable with Homo Sapiens Sapiens or Homo Sapiens Arcaicus - that I think it is not use any more.

The appearance of our species had or has the Out of Africa theory or the "multispot" theory - the modern man appears in several places, not only in Africa, but middle east and near Orient, I think. I am talking about memory and from classes almost 10 years ago, I had to have human evolution again in my master degree.
Human Evolution study is tricky, my idea is that many of the investigators want their name writing in history in finding the so call missing link, even if that will be impossible.

I remember listening to my teacher that it is possible the finest in the area here in Portugal and she told in one conference of the matter why no one talked about the Tomai mandible that had been discovered that year (I think). The answer was simple, the Leakey family didn't acknowledge that find and since they were the hosts of the conference, no one would dare to talk about it, during the expositions of ideas.

And many times, new taxa are created because the enamel of the teeth is more tick than the other one that is species X, so this has to be a new one and so on.

So thats why I prefer to study modern (homo sapiens sapiens) skeletons, at least it is only one specie and everything is equal to the other, in a broad sense...

[Rockstar]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

This shows me that you don't really understand what the Theory of Evolution is about. "Evolutionists" study how life changes, not how it originated. Any good scientist lives with the constant awareness that today's pet theory might become tomorrow's laughingstock. The purpose is to discover and try to explain how things work. They know they might be wrong, but for today all any dedicated scientist can do is look at the evidence and attempt to discover what offers the best explanation.

What other possibilities would you have them explore? What you don't seem to grasp is that the scientist who discovers they've all been wrong all these years isn't going to lose anything. He or She rather will lauded, honored and respected, given a Nobel Prize and all that. Scientists live to find new things, not to defend their egos. Well, yes, ego would have a lot to do with it, but it would be the pride of changing the way we look at the world, not the covering up of treasured beliefs.

What do you mean they study how life changes, biology changes every day but I'm not evolving into a something else, I'm just getting older. Don't evolusionists attempt to expound upon the observations of a 22 year old man of how homo sapiens evolved from apes? Wouldn't it be better to say Evolusionists study... evolution?

I see the same similarities as Darwinists do. But to jump to the conclusion that similarities is evidence of a common ancestry isnt evidence, no matter how elaborate and colorful an artists rendition of a humanities family tree may be. Evolustionist have not found one iota of evidence which shows the ever illusive 'inbetween'. Yet there are drawings of invertebrate species having all of its hard parts on the outside evolving into a fish which has all of its hard parts on the inside. But absolutley nothing inbetween.

There is another possibility that other possibility is design. Modern day science and discoveries in DNA has arrived. Darwinism predicted that most of our DNA is just useless junk left over from a blind process of trial-and-error. Design theorists predictedthat most junk DNA would prove to have function. And as DNA research has discovered it is not as evolusionist predicted it does have a function.

But Darwinists object to that the design hypothesis “isn’t science.” But that is what I think is called petitio principii. It’s no way to advance knowledge. Science shouldn't be rigged it MUST be about seeking truth and evidence. Hence my remark about egos and funding. Also in my world as far as honor and awards go. Science isnt different than anything else in life. Achievment and discovery is the name of the game thats what gets you recogition. Failure, even in science, gets you nothing ones legacy is simply known as the guy or gal who got it wrong.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Rockstar

What do you mean they study how life changes, biology changes every day...

I said they study how it changes, i.e. the process itself. Evolution does not involve how life came to be in the first place. That's another field of study altogether.

...but I'm not evolving into a something else, I'm just getting older.

Actually you are. No, individuals don't change, not even into other individuals. That said, every child we have is different, as different genes take precedence. Every child inherits traits from both parents, which is why my dad had perfect eyesight but I inherited my mom's nearsightedness. With each child there is a chance of mutations, some of which can kill the individual, and some can be beneficial, with most doing nothing at all.

Don't evolusionists attempt to expound upon the observations of a 22 year old man of how homo sapiens evolved from apes? Wouldn't it be better to say Evolusionists study... evolution?

That's exactly what they do study, in the field and in the lab, every day. I'm not sure what you're talking about here. Are you saying that every scientist who uses evolution to create new medicines to fight the new strains of bacteria and viruses that have evolved do so solely by reading Darwin's books?

I see the same similarities as Darwinists do. But to jump to the conclusion that similarities is evidence of a common ancestry isnt evidence, no matter how elaborate and colorful an artists rendition of a humanities family tree may be.

They didn't just "jump to the conclusion". The study has been conducted by large numbers of scientists over a great many years. Neanderthals were a separate species who coexisted with early modern humans until they died out around 40,000 years ago. Around 400 Neanderthal skeletons have been found, enough to verify that they were more than just a handful of individuals who happened to look like that. There is ongoing discussion within scientific circles, with some arguing that these were just a subspecies and that the two could interbreed, and others arguing for a completely different species having pretty much nothing to do with modern humans. Either way, there is sufficient evidence to believe that these were a separate line of development.

If you want to argue that these were also "designed" you first need to show why they are never mentioned anywhere in any ancient books.

Evolustionist have not found one iota of evidence which shows the ever illusive 'inbetween'. Yet there are drawings of invertebrate species having all of its hard parts on the outside evolving into a fish which has all of its hard parts on the inside. But absolutley nothing inbetween.

Oh, let's start with whales and dolphins. A great many skeletons exist that are recognizably whales, but with the nostrils at the end of the snout, just like pretty much all land mammals. there are whale skeletons found in higher layers with nostrils halfway up the snout, and of course there are later whales with the current blowhole on top of the head. It's pretty obvious that there are older whale-like skeletons found with legs. The front flippers of whales and dolphins, unlike fish, actually still have five finger bones.

I've heard apologists argue for their ideas on what the Bible says using scientific terms like "best explanatory value" while ignoring that phrase when it concerns evolution. The simple fact is that evolution offers the best explanation for what we find in nature, which is why scientists almost universally accept it. It's not "belief", it's simply that nothing with better explanatory value has come along. It's possible that something might, but until then nothing else explains what we've found anywhere near as well.

There is another possibility that other possibility is design. Modern day science and discoveries in DNA has arrived. Darwinism predicted that most of our DNA is just junk left over from a blind process of trial-and-error. Intelligent design theorists predictedthat most “junk DNA” would prove to have function. Score one for the design hypothesis.

First, Darwin never heard of DNA, so saying "Darwinism" predicted something about it is a diversion. Second, where in any scientific literature does anything like what you described occur? Yes, I've read the Answers In Genesis articles too. It's interesting that while scientists who actually work in that field change their positions from time to time (scientists are in the business of discovery, so they necessarily do that a lot), and yet the "Design" people, who don't contribute to the science at all, use that course of discovery to claim that since scientists don't always agree and since they change their minds with new discoveries, then "Design" must be true.

But Darwinists object to that the design hypothesis “isn’t science.” But that is what IO think is called petitio principii. It’s no way to advance knowledge. Science shouldn't be rigged it MUST be about seeking truth and evidence. Hence my remark about egos and funding. Also in my world as far as honor and awards go. Science isnt different than anything else in life. Achievment and discovery is the name of the game thats what gets you recogition. Failure, even in science, gets you nothing.

That's because it isn't science. Proponents of ID contribute nothing to the advancement of scientific knowledge. Their "hypothesis" is based not on scientific study of any kind but in trying to justify their belief in ancient religious texts that say nothing about the subject at hand. You used "petitio principii" where the simple English "begging the question" would have sufficed. ID proponents (who used to call themselves "Creationists" until that received so much ridicule they had to change the name and pretend it was something else) start from the premise that there is a Designer and work backwards from there. That is a classic textbook example of "petitio principii". As if that wasn't enough, they seem to have the mindset that if they can prove one thing about Evolution to be flawed then their "hypothesis" must be right. "I don't understand, therefore God." (Another classic fallacy, the "Argument from Ignorance.") ID "science" isn't about "seeking truth and evidence", it's about trying to prove that their Religious beliefs are real and nothing more. They don't care about science at all.

[Skybird]

Just for the record, the often used phrasing that "man evolves from apes", is wrong. Once there was a pre-ape population in which sub-populations formed up, the one being the earliest "forefathers" of man, the other being the early ancestors of apes. Man and ape are related. Man did not "evolve from ape".

Evolutionary strains of different eras do not always necessarily follow in a linear fashion one after the other, but species from different eras can and do coexist at the same time. Some species have not chnaged since incredibly long times, other have moved back to earlier phases of their evolutionary forming-up.

It is a wild misunderstanding that evolution always works linear. It does not. Also, it is no "driving force" of anythging. It is just an observation of for exmaple a species and its alteration over time. This then is called its evolution, its coming-about. Gravity is an external variable, a force that causally causes the apple I let slip off my hand falling to the ground. The idea of evolution has not this causing, causal quality. Its in principle just an abstract construction used by theoretists. It is no force in itself, like gravity.

Our use of the term makes it easy and more comfortable to talk about the idea behind evolution, but the language we use on it bear the risk to fundamentally misunderstand what really is meant by it.

[Rockstar]

[QUOTE=Skybird;2561257] Man and ape are related. Man did not "evolve from ape".[QUOTE]




According to this guy we're just little fish.



Prosanta Chakrabarty is an ichthyologist at Louisiana State University, and says of himself that he teaches “one of the largest evolutionary biology classes in the U.S.” God help us all!

[Rockstar]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

I said they study how it changes, i.e. the process itself. Evolution does not involve how life came to be in the first place. That's another field of study altogether.

Actually you are. No, individuals don't change, not even into other individuals. That said, every child we have is different, as different genes take precedence. Every child inherits traits from both parents, which is why my dad had perfect eyesight but I inherited my mom's nearsightedness. With each child there is a chance of mutations, some of which can kill the individual, and some can be beneficial, with most doing nothing at all.

Yes, I know I inherit physical and quite possibly some say personality traits from my parents. Some good, some bad, some beneficial and not so beneficial but its within a group called homo sapien. Prove that I am evolving into something else. Heck I'll make it easier on you prove anything is or has evolved?

That's exactly what they do study, in the field and in the lab, every day. I'm not sure what you're talking about here. Are you saying that every scientist who uses evolution to create new medicines to fight the new strains of bacteria and viruses that have evolved do so solely by reading Darwin's books?

Evolutionary medicine? From what I've read about evolutionary medicine its not as wide spread school of thought or practice as one may be lead to believe. Oh sure there are many trying to promote it. But "Most medical schools have geneticists who understand evolution, but few have even one evolutionary biologist to suggest other possible applications." Hmmm wonder why? There are a tremendous amount of success stories that owe more to pediatrics, microbiology and genetics physiology, zoology, botany and absolutley nothing whatsoever to evolutionary theory. All of which got along quite well before and after without it.

They didn't just "jump to the conclusion". The study has been conducted by large numbers of scientists over a great many years. Neanderthals were a separate species who coexisted with early modern humans until they died out around 40,000 years ago. Around 400 Neanderthal skeletons have been found, enough to verify that they were more than just a handful of individuals who happened to look like that. There is ongoing discussion within scientific circles, with some arguing that these were just a subspecies and that the two could interbreed, and others arguing for a completely different species having pretty much nothing to do with modern humans. Either way, there is sufficient evidence to believe that these were a separate line of development.

Its called hybridization and if there is evidence I'll ask again that you produce it. And yes, its been a great many a years alright. From the days of Socrates the ideas sprouted we came from apes. And after over two thousand five hundred years or so it has produced absolutely no evidence of any species ever evolving from one form into another. Yes there are similarities between certain species in the fossil record but so far no evidence of how a hard shelled arthropod morphed into a fish a fish into a rodent a rodent into an ape an ape into a man. It has become such a convoluted mess, much like these arguments.

Oh, let's start with whales and dolphins. A great many skeletons exist that are recognizably whales, but with the nostrils at the end of the snout, just like pretty much all land mammals. there are whale skeletons found in higher layers with nostrils halfway up the snout, and of course there are later whales with the current blowhole on top of the head. It's pretty obvious that there are older whale-like skeletons found with legs. The front flippers of whales and dolphins, unlike fish, actually still have five finger bones.

You are observing similarities that does not prove the whale came from the one with legs or vice versa. All it tells me is that another animal with similar features lived on this planet. Try thinking along the lines of cars. A clunky piece of junk like the British made Jaguar. Oh wait the Brits dont make them anymore. How about a Bentley, umm nope they dont make them either. Mini Cooper maybe? Yes, and The All American made muscle car the Ford GT500 Mustang. They share many features four wheels, all wheel ABS, wipers, headlights, internal combustion engines. That doesn’t mean the Mustang evolved from the Jaguar. All that means is designers reuse design features proven to work for specific engineering needs.

I've heard apologists argue for their ideas on what the Bible says using scientific terms like "best explanatory value" while ignoring that phrase when it concerns evolution. The simple fact is that evolution offers the best explanation for what we find in nature, which is why scientists almost universally accept it. It's not "belief", it's simply that nothing with better explanatory value has come along. It's possible that something might, but until then nothing else explains what we've found anywhere near as well.

Contrary to what you just said bible or no bible unless you have proof. 'best explanations can still be qualified as nothing more than an unsubstantiated belief.

First, Darwin never heard of DNA, so saying "Darwinism" predicted something about it is a diversion. Second, where in any scientific literature does anything like what you described occur? Yes, I've read the Answers In Genesis articles too. It's interesting that while scientists who actually work in that field change their positions from time to time (scientists are in the business of discovery, so they necessarily do that a lot), and yet the "Design" people, who don't contribute to the science at all, use that course of discovery to claim that since scientists don't always agree and since they change their minds with new discoveries, then "Design" must be true.

I;ve never read Answers in Genisis. But I do know even in Darwin's times and before animal breeders knew there was a means to pass on information from one generation to another. They didn’t need evolutionary theory to predict it. Yet Darwinist love to claim credit for it.

"ENCODE, established after the Genome Project to make sense of our newly sequenced DNA, published in 2012 the results from more than 1,000 experiments, conducted in dozens of laboratories by hundreds of scientists on three continents—hardly a body of evidence to be ignored. But evolutionists try, hard. The latest Darwinist salvo comes from a July article in Science Daily reporting the claim of Oxford University researchers that only 8.2 percent of our DNA appears functional. Toss the rest in the junk pile, they say. It’s useless."

Anyway, here are some in the I.D. science fields, read about there work. Michael Behe, Ralph Seekl, Scott Minnich, Wolf-Ekkerd Lonnig, Gilermo Gonzalas

That's because it isn't science. Proponents of ID contribute nothing to the advancement of scientific knowledge. Their "hypothesis" is based not on scientific study of any kind but in trying to justify their belief in ancient religious texts that say nothing about the subject at hand. You used "petitio principii" where the simple English "begging the question" would have sufficed. ID proponents (who used to call themselves "Creationists" until that received so much ridicule they had to change the name and pretend it was something else) start from the premise that there is a Designer and work backwards from there. That is a classic textbook example of "petitio principii". As if that wasn't enough, they seem to have the mindset that if they can prove one thing about Evolution to be flawed then their "hypothesis" must be right. "I don't understand, therefore God." (Another classic fallacy, the "Argument from Ignorance.") ID "science" isn't about "seeking truth and evidence", it's about trying to prove that their Religious beliefs are real and nothing more. They don't care about science at all.

Why bring wikipedia and religion into the argument? I didn't, I simply suggest intelligent design you immediately equate it too god and bibles.

As for the term creationists nothing wrong with that term really. I remember a day when a scientist could have lost tenure or been the butt of many jokes had he said the universe was created Ex Nihilo. It was within our lifetime that science just knew the universe was eternal. Looking at the WMAP it seems NASA agrees with what those desert sheep herders wrote in a book several thousand years ago. Quantum theory seems to be walking closely too with the idea what many religions have purported. Rather than random selection we are the product of a design and something greater than us. But that is my opinion and my opinion only.

I.D. scientists take a different approach than what you have been lead to believe to their methods "One of the rules of science is, no miracles allowed," said Douglas H. Erwin, a paleobiologist at the Smithsonian Institution. "That's a fundamental presumption of what we do." That does not mean that scientists do not believe in God. Many do. But they see science as an effort to find out how the material world works, with nothing to say about why we are here or how we should live.


https://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/22/u...ers-clash.html