Support NeoGAF

[Iceman]

I believe microevolution occurs. I do not believe macroevolution has occurred or is occurring. But I'm not going to totally rule it out. Doesn't matter to me much though.

 

[Willco]

They migrated,

Why do human embryo’s have gills wilco?

They don't. That is an urban legend.

 

[levious]

man at one time coexisted with its ancient monkey ancestors, but as you know, monkeys suck as navigators, so when the great age of exploration came about, monkeys were left behind.

 

[Willco]

man at one time coexisted with its ancient monkey ancestors, but as you know, monkeys suck as navigators, so when the great age of exploration came about, monkeys were left behind.

Ah, so you admit that man did not evolve from monkeys, but rather were lord and master over the Earth?

 

[levious]

who's the master?


- is there no current thread on DC baseball? Angelos bribed those council members didn't he.

 

[Do The Mario]

Found some info on the common ancestor in one of my books its believed to be

Ardipithecus ramidus – 6 million years ago

The ancestor to both chimps and humans, I am gona try to scan the page tomorrow.

 

[Willco]

is there no current thread on DC baseball? Angelos bribed those council members didn't he.

We're talking about it in the officiall baseball offseason thread. I don't think it warrants a separate thread until Jan. 1st, 2005 -- THE DAY DC BASEBALL DIED.

Linda Cropp proves why evolution is a farce.

 

[Link648099]

As for there being no proof, I think that that is one of the weakest arguments for creationism. There are fossils that can be carbon dated back to millions of years, much longer then Creationists believe the world to have existed. .

Carbon dating goes back only into the thousands. Certainly no further back then 100,000 years.

The fact that the earth is billions of years old also contradicts that it was created in six days, but I have heard an argument that "God days" are longer then "real" days, and I can even sort of buy that, being a spiritual person myself, but I still think that it is an excuse and flimsy at best

Not an excuse, a correct exegetical interpretation of Genesis 1 in the original Hebrew says nothing of how old the earth is, and in fact, argues for an old earth. The Bible never gives the earth an exact age, but always refers to it as old or ancient. The old idea that the earth was created in six 24 hour days is usually a product of extreme fundamentalism, with it's origins being traced back to a backlash of evolutionary theory when it first began to emerge in the early 19th century. It's interesting to note that the early Christians living between 100 and 500 AD mostly interpreted Genesis 1 as non-literal when it came to the "days", and did not have a problem giving the earth an old date.

Finally (for now probably) I also point to living fossils. The Coelcanth and other fish, not to mention Crocodiles and Sharks

This does nothing to provide evidence for evolution, but in fact, could be seen as evidence against it. If the primary means of change in biological organisms is due solely to random, beneficial mutations, and these organisms have remained virtually unchanged for millions of years, then no evolution has taken place. But then again, only so much can be argued from fossil evidence, which makes up only a very small percentage of an organisms body mass.

Creationism seems to me to be more of a hope that people cling to because it fits their personal dogma. Just a final Caveat, biogotted professor aside, I do want to insult anyone and if I have it was not intended. This is a subject I enjoy debating, though I doubt any creationists will change my mind, or me theirs.

I agree with you on the creationists. I in fact use to be one back in the day. Being a Christian, thats where I started out, but frankly, the evidence of an old earth was just too much for me to ignore, so I explored other interpreations of Genesis, and found several that accomadate an old earth and stay true to the text. Concerning neo-darwinian evolution, my jury is still out for now. I have not studied it enough to make an informed decision one way or the other, and thats actually why im taking an Evolutionary Biology course next semester to get a better understanding of it all. Personally though, if evolution is wholly true, partly true, or not true, doesnt matter to me really. Genesis 1 never says "how" God created everything, just that he did create everything. So even with full blown evolution, even for humans, there is still plenty of room for God. Of course, you'll probably meet a few people from both sides who claim that the two are impossible to merge, but take my advice and ignore them, cause more often then not, all they have to argue from is their own self-created definitions of "evolution" and "creation".

I guess it might be interesting on these boards to note that when Genesis 1 is correctly interpretated, it's account of the creation of the universe, earth, and all life on it is amazingly similiar to what modern science has determined to have taken place in the past. This link might be of interest to some: http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/genesis1.html

 

[SteveMeister]

Click on the picture of the Iraqi Information Minister. I challenge ANYONE to read the three long posts in the linked thread and still think that evolution is wrong. And yes, I know I posted the link before, but since nobody commented on it, it makes me think my picture-less post was lost in the shuffle.

Seriously -- it's worth reading the entire thing.

 

[deadhorse32]

We're losing it, as a country. Our math and science scores are dismal, we aren't the industrial leader we once were. And the rise of dogmatic (rather than scientific or humanistic) leadership in schools and government is furthering our decline.

I love my country, and I am upset to see it killing itself over religious issues. Especially when, if you leave the hard dogma out of it, there's no reason that faith and spirituality oughtn't be something that elevates the country rather than drags it down.

WORD

 

[Do The Mario]

Carbon dating goes back only into the thousands. Certainly no further back then 100,000 years.



Not an excuse, a correct exegetical interpretation of Genesis 1 in the original Hebrew says nothing of how old the earth is, and in fact, argues for an old earth. The Bible never gives the earth an exact age, but always refers to it as old or ancient. The old idea that the earth was created in six 24 hour days is usually a product of extreme fundamentalism, with it's origins being traced back to a backlash of evolutionary theory when it first began to emerge in the early 19th century. It's interesting to note that the early Christians living between 100 and 500 AD mostly interpreted Genesis 1 as non-literal when it came to the "days", and did not have a problem giving the earth an old date.



This does nothing to provide evidence for evolution, but in fact, could be seen as evidence against it. If the primary means of change in biological organisms is due solely to random, beneficial mutations, and these organisms have remained virtually unchanged for millions of years, then no evolution has taken place. But then again, only so much can be argued from fossil evidence, which makes up only a very small percentage of an organisms body mass.



I agree with you on the creationists. I in fact use to be one back in the day. Being a Christian, thats where I started out, but frankly, the evidence of an old earth was just too much for me to ignore, so I explored other interpreations of Genesis, and found several that accomadate an old earth and stay true to the text. Concerning neo-darwinian evolution, my jury is still out for now. I have not studied it enough to make an informed decision one way or the other, and thats actually why im taking an Evolutionary Biology course next semester to get a better understanding of it all. Personally though, if evolution is wholly true, partly true, or not true, doesnt matter to me really. Genesis 1 never says "how" God created everything, just that he did create everything. So even with full blown evolution, even for humans, there is still plenty of room for God. Of course, you'll probably meet a few people from both sides who claim that the two are impossible to merge, but take my advice and ignore them, cause more often then not, all they have to argue from is their own self-created definitions of "evolution" and "creation".

I guess it might be interesting on these boards to note that when Genesis 1 is correctly interpretated, it's account of the creation of the universe, earth, and all life on it is amazingly similiar to what modern science has determined to have taken place in the past. This link might be of interest to some: http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/genesis1.html

Why do all chordates have gills at some stage in there life cycle?


Thread over


Unless someone can justify how and why all the chordates have gills without using “evolution”

 

[olimario]

Here are my problems with it.
If we did evolve, wouldn't there be skeletons of EVERY link of the chain between monkey and man?

And if we DID evolve from apes, and apes are still around, why arent every transitional step between ape and man still around? Why aren't every transitional step between glop of goo and ape still around?

We find all these fossils of 'neandrothal' and 'cro-magnum' man, but all they say to me is that there were once more species and now they are no longer.

 

[Do The Mario]

Here are my problems with it.
If we did evolve, wouldn't there be skeletons of EVERY link of the chain between monkey and man?

And if we DID evolve from apes, and apes are still around, why arent every transitional step between ape and man still around? Why aren't every transitional step between glop of goo and ape still around?

We find all these fossils of 'neandrothal' and 'cro-magnum' man, but all they say to me is that there were once more species and now they are no longer.

Oli

1. Fossil evidence depends purely on chance so you can’t expect every link to be perfectly documented.

2. Once a species evolves in generally has a similar niche to it’s ancestor, natural selection ensures only the superior? Animal species will survive.

3. However there are examples of ancestral animals that are still alive, here in Australia we have several spices of lungfish, the coelacanth is still alive in many areas of the world.

 

[Link648099]

They migrated,

Why do human embryo’s have gills wilco?

After taking a few Human anatomy courses in my college career, I can easily tell you that those are not gills to begin with. They only look like gills, but serve no "gillish" function what so ever. Those flaps you see will soon develop into the inner and outer ears on the fetus. And yes, the appendix does have a use (part of the lymphatic system, as are the tonsils), so does the tail bone (it's an anchor for your buttock muscles...without it you would be a perpetual crapping machine with no bowel control), and the "tail" visible in growing fetuses is not a tail to begin with. As the fetus forms in the womb, one of the first systems to begin developing is the nervous system. That curly "tail" you see is nothing more then a cavity the spinal cord will soon grow into.

Now also, what are you trying to say about your Chordata or whats it called?

 

[6.8]

What do the mario said.

I think it's silly to assume that every fossil of every species ever could be found, or that every species that has ever existed (creationist or not) has a fossil that's worth something.

 

[Do The Mario]

After taking a few Human anatomy courses in my college career, I can easily tell you that those are not gills to begin with. They only look like gills, but serve no "gillish" function what so ever. Those flaps you see will soon develop into the inner and outer ears on the fetus. And yes, the appendix does have a use (part of the lymphatic system, as are the tonsils), so does the tail bone (it's an anchor for your buttock muscles...without it you would be a perpetual crapping machine with no bowel control), and the "tail" visible in growing fetuses is not a tail to begin with. As the fetus forms in the womb, one of the first systems to begin developing is the nervous system. That curly "tail" you see is nothing more then a cavity the spinal cord will soon grow into.

Now also, what are you trying to say about your Chordata or whats it called?

They are pharyngeal silts common to all chordate species, I simply using the world gill to dumb it down.

 

[darscot]

Evolution is a very strong argument. Darwinism has some major flaws though. We are evolving there is no doubt about that. It does appear we are moving on a predetermined path. Which leans more towards creationism. So I kind of sit in the middle.

Anyone that doesnt see the connection between man and beast has never watched the discovery channel then went to a bar.

 

[Drozmight]

Technology has put an end to human evolution.

 

[Do The Mario]

What I am saying about chordates

Sea Squirt Larvae have pharyngeal gill silts
Fish have pharyngeal gill silts
Sharks have pharyngeal gill silts
Tadpoles have pharyngeal gill silts
Reptiles have pharyngeal gill silts
Apes have pharyngeal gill silts
Humans have pharyngeal gill silts
Dog’s have pharyngeal gill silts
Cats have pharyngeal gill silts

You had pharyngeal gill silts

 

[levious]

Here are my problems with it.
If we did evolve, wouldn't there be skeletons of EVERY link of the chain between monkey and man?

And if we DID evolve from apes, and apes are still around, why arent every transitional step between ape and man still around? Why aren't every transitional step between glop of goo and ape still around?

We find all these fossils of 'neandrothal' and 'cro-magnum' man, but all they say to me is that there were once more species and now they are no longer.

A lot of this stuff I learned in high school.

we didn't evolve from apes/monkeys... we have a common ancestor. Neanderthal is a debated topic, was it an offshoot prior to sapiens, there's evidence of interbreeding between Neanderthal and Sapiens. For reference, we are homo sapien sapien - mordern human.

Like was said... the chances of remains becoming fossilized is less than winning the lottery.

 

[Do The Mario]

\ They only look like gills, but serve no "gillish" function what so ever. QUOTE]


When did i say they had a gillish function?

Uses for Pharyngeal silts during evolution

1. Filter Feeding
2. Gas exchange
3. Jaw Support
4. Hearing

 

[AssMan]

So I guess we can throw out that we evolved from fish?

 

[McLesterolBeast]

Believing that evolution is not the sole contributor to the modern human form is at least understandable given people's religious "beliefs".

Dismissing the scientific validity of the "theory" of evolution is not justifiable from an objective stand point. Evolution is scientifically "proven" to as much of a degree as we could ever expect to. There isn't any 'smoking gun' pieces of evidence in terms of scientific data that disconfirms it, or else the "theory" would not still be there in it's current form.

Strangely, I have yet to see someone arguing against evolution that doesn't bring up the issue of carbon dating being inaccurate beyond a specific set of time. Considering that bit of knowledge is not self evidently true, i'd have to assume that there's some sort of common source of "creationist" knowledge that misinforms readers to believe that carbon dating IS used beyond that effective period of time. There's also the vague notion of "mid forms" and, stranger than anything, a long list of things that are attributed to "evolution" that really have absolutely nothing to do with it.

Is there some sort of "creationist" canon that im not aware of? Because I'd love to see the source of information that those arguing on behalf of creationism get their "knowledge". That really is what interests me most with the debate, because the issue itself is beyond argument.

 

[geogaddi]

Why do all chordates have gills at some stage in there life cycle?


Thread over


Unless someone can justify how and why all the chordates have gills without using “evolution”

Chordates with/without gills are still chordates. By it having gills and then not doesn't prove that fish evolved into philosophers.

Heres an old post of mine;

It is true that natural selection (change in color, loss of wings, became blind) is supported via mutations (which is loss of genetic information or re-shuffling of the same genetic makeup) but it's the "fish-to-philosopher" evolution that is still in question because it requires new genetic information, not a loss/reshuffling of the existing genetic information.

"There is no known law of nature, no known process and no known sequence of events which can cause information to originate by itself in matter.’"- Dr. Werner Gitt
(director and professor at the German Federal Institute of Physics and Technology (Physikalisch-Technische Bundesanstalt, Braunschweig), the Head of the Department of Information Technology)

The Problem of Information

You learn this in a basic level class on "genetic algorithms" at your local university. (Article) Natural selection does not show that new information is created, rather, the existing genetic information is being altered, reshuffled or lost. This is a basic mutation that can be observed. Many scientists that study genetics propose that perhaps, junk/excess information eventually (which is why they need the "millions" variable) becomes useful. Main problems with this is that the proper mechanisms for this to occur can't/doesn't exist (article).

This issue can go back and forth back and forth back and forth and I realize that. For now, that is all I have to say.

 

[Do The Mario]

Chordates with/without gills are still chordates. By it having gills and then not doesn't prove that fish evolved into philosophers.

Heres an old post of mine;



The Problem of Information

You learn this in a basic level class on "genetic algorithms" at your local university. (Article) Natural selection does not show that new information is created, rather, the existing genetic information is being altered, reshuffled or lost. This is a basic mutation that can be observed. Many scientists that study genetics propose that perhaps, junk/excess information eventually (which is why they need the "millions" variable) becomes useful. Main problems with this is that the proper mechanisms for this to occur can't/doesn't exist (article).

This issue can go back and forth back and forth back and forth and I realize that. For now, that is all I have to say.

I wouldn’t discount comparative anatomy when discussing evolution it’s extremely important.

Anyway it’s 2am, but when I surface you can expect me to write a summary of “sea squirts” to “humans” Explaining how animals evolved along the way

Edit: yes it’s possible to gain new genetic information

Bacteria for example transfer DNA/RNA strands all the time
Purely Random Mutation is considered “new information”
Even reproductive is a way of gaining “new” information

However what you said about reshuffling of junk DNA is very true

 

[McLesterolBeast]

Here are my problems with it.
If we did evolve, wouldn't there be skeletons of EVERY link of the chain between monkey and man?

And if we DID evolve from apes, and apes are still around, why arent every transitional step between ape and man still around? Why aren't every transitional step between glop of goo and ape still around?

We find all these fossils of 'neandrothal' and 'cro-magnum' man, but all they say to me is that there were once more species and now they are no longer.

Fossilization is an extremely rare process. If there's a chain of...

a---> b---> c---> d---> e ..... ---> x

... with each letter being a form in the tree of anscestory, we dont have such a bountiful supply of each precise form. If a form existed for a hundred thousand years or so and differences were insignificant, you would lump them into the same species. Let's say that's classification A. Say, then, that B covers forms that have progressed (or changed if you want to be politically correct) beyond a certain arbitrary point, enough so to justify a new category of species. You could possibly have a few samples of that. Then for form C, possibly, somewhere in the next 100,000 years there was a relatively drastic change in the form, but it still carries all of the old characteristics except a few different ones. There were no other species around in that period of time that were even remotely similar, let's say. Somewhere within the 100,000 years, a specific trait may have been particularly beneficial (existing traits, or one that arose through adaptable mutation) and resulted in that being selected repeatedly until change came about. Statistically, it is incredibly improbable that we would have the fossil of the particular individual animal where the change originated. It's a one in a billion crapshoot. Even if you did find that particular animal, you would have no way of knowing for sure that it was "the one". When placing all of the forms together though, steady and reliable change is observable. There are a certain amount of unknown variables, but given our knowledge of how evolution on a micro level occurs, we can be fairly certain that evolution on a macro level does exist. It is the most probable (by far) explanation of how change occurs.

 

[Lucky Forward]

If the primary means of change in biological organisms is due solely to random, beneficial mutations, and these organisms have remained virtually unchanged for millions of years, then no evolution has taken place.

I'm surprised that no one has mentioned an idea complementary to Darwinian survival of the fittest, that of evolution by sexual selection: the idea that when a female chooses whom to mate with, she is shaping the future of her species.

The classic example of sexual selection is the peacock. Females choose the male with the longest, brightest plumage, and peacocks thus evolve to have very long, bright plumage. This plumage confers no survival advantage, but it is a successful stategy as long as the male reproduces. Female bowerbirds choose the male who builds the biggest, most ornate nest, and over the millenia bowerbirds evolve to build huge (for their size) ornately decorated nests.

Female humans (some speculate) choose the males who demonstrate the greatest intelligence through their hunting and gathering skills, handcrafting skills, artistic acumen, and the care and devotion that indicates they would be good family providers. Thus, humans evolve to be intelligent hunter gatherers skilled in arts and crafts who have a long-term dedication to their families.

This is evolution without the need for random mutations, but rather shaped by the females' choice. Rather than the genetic deck being randomly shuffled by indiscriminate mating, each individual effort to choose the best mate helps to improve the species.

 

[SteveMeister]

Human fetuses have tails.

 

[Macam]

The November 2004 issue of National Geographic specifically addressed this issue quite well. It was quite informative and perhaps somewhat disturbing (quoting a Gallup figure that 44 percent or more of Americans consistently believe in Creationism across the years), but it essentially set out to reaffirm evolution's factual basis. It's true it's a scientific theory, but as they say in the article, so is Einstein's theory of relativity, continental drift, the notion that Earth orbits the sun rather than vice versa, the existence, structure, and dynamics of atoms, and even electricity is a theoretical construct. Moreover, as they go on to say, theories are explanatory statements that fit the evidence and not dreamy, unreliable speculation.

Nonetheless, what people believe on this matter or its inevitable religious ties has become entirely irrelevant to me. People can choose to believe what they wish, and if one day they care to accept the increasing amount of evidence on certain issues, they can. And if not, that's their choice. It's just a shame that some public schools in Georgia are attempting to mislead children on the issue and that this issue continues to rear its head in the public domain long after the Scopes trial and the decades of knowledge accumuated since.

 

[Diffense]

I don't believe.

My problem? Well, there really is precious little evidence for it. Indeed some of the scientific realities available to us challenge it. At least those who thought the sun evolved around the earth saw it rise and set and those who thought the earth was flat saw the ominous horizon looming before them. Nontheless their conclusions were erroneous even though the facts could be viewed as supporting them. IMO, evolution (to the extent that it is advocated) lies on shakier ground than geocentrism.

 

[JoshuaJSlone]

I'm surprised that no one has mentioned an idea complementary to Darwinian survival of the fittest, that of evolution by sexual selection: the idea that when a female chooses whom to mate with, she is shaping the future of her species.

I always considered that just part of "survival of the fittest", though it is more than survival as you point out. The last century might've been a lot funnier we'd been having arguments about "survival of the best lay".

 

[The Shadow]

I was exaggerating--I can't remember exact sources, but I do recall an instructional video a few years ago showing carbon dating on a freshly dead animal (a deer, I believe) that read out as thousands of years old.

An instructional video that was purposely released to mislead people into thinking Carbon Dating is an invalid and inaccurate technique it would seem. Carbon Dating has a certain range of dates where it's accurate and if it's something too recent or too old, it no longer works. Radiocarbon dating isn't the only tool we have and in combination with other techniques such as dendrochronology and Florine dating can make it a valid way of dating samples. Plus, by determining the ratio of C14 to C12 from ice cores, you can eliminate ratio irregularities and make carbon dating that much more accurate.

Scientific theories aren't just some bullshit that people come up with. They pass rigorous scientific examination. Relativity is still a "theory" but it's all but proven. Not just on paper, but a lot of it in observation. How can you ignore the similarity in DNA that humans have with almost every species on Earth?

I don't understand what people have against science. Everything you see around you is a product of scientific breakthroughs. Every time we understand the universe a little better, it's because of science. We have nothing to gain from believing in superstition.

I just can't believe that we have these kinds of debates in the 21st century. It's been 150 years since Charles Darwin observed natural selection. It's terrifying to me that in 2004 45% of the U.S. population believes that humans have been around for less than 10,000 years. What does that mean for America's ability to maintain its leadership in scientific research?

The Bible is not a research paper. I think we all learned in high school that scientific findings need to be reproducable to be valid.

I have some faith in humanity, though. We once believed the Earth was flat too.

Agreed. I really do feel we as a nation are entering into a new Dark Age, where science is heresy and religion is the only truth. As someone who's studying genetics, I find myself having to restrain some of the things I know because it would upset or anger people who are religious. To me, that's just flat out wrong.

Here are my problems with it.
If we did evolve, wouldn't there be skeletons of EVERY link of the chain between monkey and man?

And if we DID evolve from apes, and apes are still around, why arent every transitional step between ape and man still around? Why aren't every transitional step between glop of goo and ape still around?

We find all these fossils of 'neandrothal' and 'cro-magnum' man, but all they say to me is that there were once more species and now they are no longer.

1a. We didn't evolve from apes, we had a common ancestor.
1b. If people actually *BOTHERED* to look at the evidence, you can see a steady progression from modern human to more ancestral versions of man. The earlier you go, the more "gaps" but more new evidence is found all the time. If you take an Evolutionary Anthropology course, it's almost guaranteed that they'll find another sample that files in the gaps.

2. Read answer 1a. It seems that people who dispute evolution have a very poor understanding of it.

3. Cro-Magnon Man is actually a fossil of an early modern human. Neanderthals, like Cro-Magnon Man, had a common ancestor in the past. We did not evolve *from* Neanderthals(Homo neanderthalensis. Same genus, different species). They branched out and unfortunately didn't survive as a species whereas early Homo sapiens did.

 

[Ecrofirt]

Someone care to explain to me where everything came from if some form of evolution didn't take place?

Were we all plopped on this planet by a spaceship or something?

Someone please explain, as I've honestly got no idea.

 

[olimario]

Someone care to explain to me where everything came from if some form of evolution didn't take place?

Were we all plopped on this planet by a spaceship or something?

Someone please explain, as I've honestly got no idea.

If we can believe that all matter was created from nothingness, then we can believe we were plopped here.
Believe in evolution or not, I don't know how people can deny diety in some form or fashion.

 

[McLesterolBeast]

Isnt it technically homo sapien neanderthalensis (with us being homo sapien sapien)? We're actually the same species too, technically.

 

[videogamer]

My question: why do people who believe in intelligent design/Creationism tend to automatically assume that (a) supernatural being(s) created life on Earth, not aliens, extinct intelligent species, or something else?

 

[The Shadow]

Isnt it technically homo sapien neanderthalensis (with us being homo sapien sapien)? We're actually the same species too, technically.

It's still debated, depending on which evidence you go with. Some people think Neanderthals interbred with early Homo sapiens and we're a combination of the two. There is also sentiment that a species as advanced as Neanderthals *had* to be related to Homo sapiens in some way. Others think that we were different enough that we were a separate species and no interbreeding took place.

I tend to think of the later. People who think we interbred tend to go with one single piece of evidence wherein a fossil of a child seemed to have features of both species. Looking at DNA evidence (some DNA was extracted from a Neanderthal tooth) and we don't have any Neanderthal DNA at all. Their tools were different, their culture, head structure, etc. They were a separate species but sometimes you still see them listed as Homo sapiens neaderthalensis.

 

[monkey79]

I don't. Everything is just a tad bit too advanced, complicated and well balanced to all have happened by chance. There had to be a master designer.

 

[Shogmaster]

This topic always amuses me. I've met thoughtful intelligent folks that refuses to belive in evolution, while loving everything about technology and science. I've went to a Catholic Highschool where a bunch of jesuit priests were part of the faculty, and I was taught all about evolution by one in Biology class.

For those who refuse to believe in evolution, I have a term for you to look up: cognitive dissonance.

 

[levious]

Believe in evolution or not, I don't know how people can deny diety in some form or fashion.

That's the biggest problem I think... extremists on both sides need to realize/acknowledge that belief in or arguments for evolution should not be equated to arguments against the existence of god... they shouldn't even be related. Fact vs. truth.

Isnt it technically homo sapien neanderthalensis (with us being homo sapien sapien)? We're actually the same species too, technically.

That's the whole debate... there's a lot of euro bias. When they first discovered the remains, they didn't want to be related to such an ugly looking beast.

Two main theories, both essentially "out of africa," it's just a matter of when. Was it erectus or sapiens that spread out. There's already plenty of evidence that erectus spread out, it's just that sapien out of africa supporters argue that the master race went and wiped everyone else out. If you compare erectus fossils in a given area (asia for example) to later sapien fossils (50,000 years old let's say) there's many physical similarities between them. In other words, if we studied the fossil record alone, it's obvious that erectus spread out, then evolved on a near global scale into sapiens, then modern man.

There's also numerous fossil evidence of neanderthal/sapien hybrids. Problem is, when they started using genetics to create a timeline of evolution, they started searching for Eve. Waste of time I'd say, at least at this point in genetic science. Applying a timeline to genetic mutation is haphazard at best.

shadow,

the hybrid fossils are not just more than one... and even if it was, finding one is enough.

 

[JoshuaJSlone]

If we can believe that all matter was created from nothingness, then we can believe we were plopped here.
Believe in evolution or not, I don't know how people can deny diety in some form or fashion.

There are definitely still an infinite number of mysteries out there. However, with what we currently know, it's easier for me to swallow "Matter popped up for some unknown reason and things went from there." than "People popped up on Earth for some unknown reason." or "All-powerful deity popped up for some unknown reason and caused other things to pop up."

 

[The Shadow]

shadow,

the hybrid fossils are not just more than one... and even if it was, finding one is enough.

I've never heard of any others aside from that child, and that child was the strongest physical evidence for it. It had been a theory up until that time, fulled by a strange need to include Neanderthals into our family for seemingly no other purpose than to be politically correct. AND, just one sample *isn't* enough. How many times has a sample had to be reclassified because they didn't have enough examples of the same species? Moreover, it was a child, not a full grown adult. Perhaps Neanderthal features aren't as pronounced in childhood and they share some similarity with modern man (we were related after all, albiet at an earlier time). If it was an adult, I'd be more inclined to believe it.

I don't think people give Neanderthal enough credit. They were an advanced species at the time, in some ways more advanced than sapiens, but there were distinct differences between the species as well. Enough differences that people simply can't ignore them. Why don't we have a pronounced brow ridge? Why don't we still have an occipital bun? Where did our sloped foreheads go? Our heads are distinctly round unlike the narrower, longer Neanderthal skulls. These things shouldn't have just disappeared if there was hybridization.

 

[tenchir]

Just wondering, what are creationists explanation to the existance of neanderthals? Considering we have fossils of them, that our DNA are similar to theirs, and that it's likely they existed at the same time as our ancestor.

Aren't their other species of Home Sapiens too that we have fossils of too??? Like the Crom Magnum(can't remember the spelling)

 

[Shogmaster]

Just wondering, what are creationists explanation to the existance of neanderthals?

My fav was: that God put those fossils in the ground to test the faith of the people. :lol

 

[Ignatz Mouse]

Personally though, if evolution is wholly true, partly true, or not true, doesnt matter to me really. Genesis 1 never says "how" God created everything, just that he did create everything. So even with full blown evolution, even for humans, there is still plenty of room for God.

Amen!

I generally think of myself as an atheist*, but this point of view sums up my feelings on the matter. I generally think spirituality is a good thing, but when one tried to bend science to fit dogma, everyone loses.


(* Some would call me agnostic, but I think that's a semantic game when applied to me. I don't believe in a god, but just becuase I am not dead certain of that does not make me an agnostic)

 

[levious]

yeah, there's been two or three new finds since the initial one. Political Correctness has nothing to do with it. It's the idea that within the genus homo, differences have become more and more minimal. I really think that DNA evidence can be thrown out the window, especially if the theory that 50/60,000 years ago the human population got heavily reduced.

All of those physical features still exist in humans today, just in rare occurances here and there. Not to make a joke, but how many times do you see bizarre looking people with out of control brows. There's little consistency in the physical feature of modern man... there's people that have had 800cc brain size yet were perfectly normal otherwise.

 

[EviLore]

So, Mandy, has there been enough of a response to warrant...it? ;b


And Will, you trolled. Trolling is bad.

 

[Lucky Forward]

I don't think people give Neanderthal enough credit. They were an advanced species at the time, in some ways more advanced than sapiens, but there were distinct differences between the species as well. Enough differences that people simply can't ignore them. Why don't we have a pronounced brow ridge? Why don't we still have an occipital bun? Where did our sloped foreheads go? Our heads are distinctly round unlike the narrower, longer Neanderthal skulls. These things shouldn't have just disappeared if there was hybridization.

Pronounced brow ridge? Sloped forehead?

Yoda was a Neanderthal!

 

[tenchir]

yeah, there's been two or three new finds since the initial one. Political Correctness has nothing to do with it. It's the idea that within the genus homo, differences have become more and more minimal. I really think that DNA evidence can be thrown out the window, especially if the theory that 50/60,000 years ago the human population got heavily reduced.

How much difference is there between Neanderthal DNA and modern human DNA?
http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/evol2000.html
I don't understand why DNA evidence should should be thrown out if 50/60 thousand years ago the human popupulation got heavily reduced(from what?).

All of those physical features still exist in humans today, just in rare occurances here and there. Not to make a joke, but how many times do you see bizarre looking people with out of control brows. There's little consistency in the physical feature of modern man... there's people that have had 800cc brain size yet were perfectly normal otherwise.

The thing is that all the fossils that is found have identical features(sloping forehead, larger cranium, etc). It's one thing to have a single physical feature, but if a group of them have all of the features and it isn't a coincidental thing.

 

[Lucky Forward]

I seem to recall reading that Neanderthal man actually had a larger brain size than modern man (although I guess he didn't do a lot with it). Can anyone confirm this?