DescentBB

Top Gun, so flippin' learned. We're proud of you.
You need to learn the difference between conjecture and fact.
Evolution isn't fact, it's a theory. Biology is based on relations between observation and evolution.
You think I'M closed-minded...

As for the rest of the hippies in here:
You know what I do? I work 9 days a week. I support myself. I support my family. I believe in things that are right, just, and honorable. If you want to demonize that then go ahead. I live in the middle of nowhere, where people are just like me. Guess what? My little community is awesome. I've already proven that a world of people like me would be great.

SilverFJ wrote:Top Gun, so flippin' learned. We're proud of you.
You need to learn the difference between conjecture and fact.
Evolution isn't fact, it's a theory. Biology is based on relations between observation and evolution.
You think I'M closed-minded...

As for the rest of the hippies in here:
You know what I do? I work 9 days a week. I support myself. I support my family. I believe in things that are right, just, and honorable. If you want to demonize that then go ahead. I live in the middle of nowhere, where people are just like me. Guess what? My little community is awesome. I've already proven that a world of people like me would be great.

How have you proven that? Weren't you just talking about conjecture and fact?

SilverFJ wrote:Top Gun, so flippin' learned. We're proud of you.
You need to learn the difference between conjecture and fact.
Evolution isn't fact, it's a theory. Biology is based on relations between observation and evolution.
You think I'M closed-minded...

The fact that you don't even know the definition of a scientific theory proves that, yes, you are worse than close-minded. Seriously, did you manage to flunk grade-school science class?

As for the rest of the hippies in here:
You know what I do? I work 9 days a week. I support myself. I support my family. I believe in things that are right, just, and honorable. If you want to demonize that then go ahead. I live in the middle of nowhere, where people are just like me. Guess what? My little community is awesome. I've already proven that a world of people like me would be great.

A world of people like you would probably collapse in a week as you all collectively accused each other of witchcraft.

SilverFJ wrote:Top Gun, so flippin' learned. We're proud of you.
You need to learn the difference between conjecture and fact.
Evolution isn't fact, it's a theory. Biology is based on relations between observation and evolution.
You think I'M closed-minded...

lol.

you're getting theory mixed up with hypothesis. Evolution is a theory and a fact, much like quantum entanglement, gravity, special relativity , and the Copenhagen interpretation.

I don't believe science has ANY evidence to support the theory of the evolution of mankind.
BUT, I don't deny the fact that in laboratory test conditions (or perfect conditions to create an adaptive response) some organisms exert the ability to become adequately able to survive.

Of course a virus, bacteria or whatever type of cell out there will be able to adapt to situations when you grant them the best possible scenario in order to reach that point right from the start.

But, calling anything 'fact' that you hypothesize happened millions of years ago (according to those of you who believe this) is in itself completely flawed scientifically, considering the goal of science is to test AND prove a hypothesis by experimentation and being able to get the same result consecutively over and over again, ONLY after that can it become a theory.

The very nature of science itself is not to draw indefinite conclusions, so using science to prove our origins is like trying to find light in a black hole, you'll never find some answers that await us later on.

Behemoth wrote:I don't believe science has ANY evidence to support the theory of the evolution of mankind.

What are these, then?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australopithecus
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_habilis
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_erectus

A test of faith?

YiKes man, we're gonna go extinct

Going extinct is part of the natural order.

null0010 wrote:

Behemoth wrote:I don't believe science has ANY evidence to support the theory of the evolution of mankind.

What are these, then?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australopithecus
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_habilis
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_erectus

A test of faith?

They have just as much a chance of being animal, and they're certainly not human.
Fossil remains aren't evidence dude, it's just a look in the past. What I want to know is WHAT CELLULAR EVIDENCE DOES SCIENCE HAVE TO PROVE THE HYPOTHESIS OF HUMAN EVOLUTION.

Holy crap, dude...as I've said more than once this week, pick up a freakin' biology textbook and try actually learning what you're talking about. Those hominid fossils are human ancestors, for any number of reasons...and while we're at it, of course they're animals, because so are we! A "look in the past" via fossils is pretty much the very definition of evidence, as they show us direct changes in structure and function over millions of years. And there is plenty of cellular evidence for the process of natural selection leading to differentiation of traits; there have been many studies conducted on the changes in many-generation bacterial colonies exposed to different environments. Hell, there's an entirely different category of cellular evidence in terms of organisms living today...we can see how changes in the underlying DNA determine the relationships between different categories of organisms.

Seriously...is the US educational system really this bad? We're fucked, aren't we? But even so, the joy of it is that it doesn't really matter in the long run what one person chooses not to believe. Science doesn't give a damn about that. Denying that a universal truth is true doesn't make it any less true.

Just like making non-sense up and calling it truth doesn't make it truth.

And no, bones aren't a good enough indicator because the cells in the specimens are long dead and can't be compared to living cells from present day tissues from humans, or apes, The same as carbon dating can't always be a perfect indicator of lifetime.

But it's okay, I already know you won't agree, so it doesn't matter.

Behe, you have a point in that we can't observe changes which occurred in the past. That's a limitation no one (not evolutionary scientists, not young-earth creationists, no one) can overcome.

So, what does good scientific study do? Say "we can't know with 100.00% certainty, so let's not try"? No, of course not. It looks at current data (which includes fossil records, dynamics of observable changes, etc.) and from the pattern, creates a "best-fit" model.

The model which currently best fits the data involves large-scale changes over long time. Many scientists attribute this to evolutionary mechanics, others attribute it to God.

Behemoth wrote:Just like making non-sense up and calling it truth doesn't make it truth.

And no, bones aren't a good enough indicator because the cells in the specimens are long dead and can't be compared to living cells from present day tissues from humans, or apes, The same as carbon dating can't always be a perfect indicator of lifetime.

But it's okay, I already know you won't agree, so it doesn't matter.

As I said, it doesn't matter what I agree with or don't...the fact remains that you are objectively wrong. If you're fine with being wrong, more power to you, but that won't stop the rest of us from pointing and laughing at you.

And I never said anything about fossils being useful for direct cellular material (for the record, being "dead" wouldn't affect DNA comparisons at all; it's the fact that fossils don't contain the original organic material that's the trick), but instead that they provide invaluable data about changes in structure in function over time. We can look at fossils of those various hominids that null linked and do things like examine their skull structure to track the growth of brain size, or look at the setup of their leg bones to see whether they walked upright or not, or look at the hands to track the refinement of our opposable thumbs. And examining where we find these fossils gives us information about the range and distribution of those species when they were alive. Also, radiometric dating, whether it's using carbon or another element, is pretty damn accurate, seeing as how it always operates on a fairly-simple exponential decay model.

(Foil, you split this right while I was in the middle of making this post, so you left me scratching my head and wondering where what I was responding to had gone for a minute. )

Top gun, what are the mathematical odds of that theory being correct?

EDIT: Oh, and you didn't prove me wrong either, you can't.

I thought evolution was supposed to be slow and gradual? Why then do we see distinctive features in all these hominds but nothing transitive between the 3. If we evolved along the lines as Null's links, then how can you accurately claim the previous forms are extinct. More accurate would be to say they were previous forms we had and we kept evolving into what we are today. That suggest a slow, gradual change into what we are today. If evolution was to be true, I'd have a a big issue with the use of the word extinction.

The problem we have here is religious fervor knocking its head against scientific findings. Some Christians just can't believe the world is more than 10k years old. To them anything showing otherwise is not proof but conjecture.

The problem we have here is religious fervor knocking its head against scientific findings. Some Christians just can't believe the world is more than 10k years old. To them anything showing otherwise is not proof but conjecture.

Obviously a problem for all involved, not just Christians.

woodchip wrote:The problem we have here is religious fervor knocking its head against scientific findings. Some Christians just can't believe the world is more than 10k years old. To them anything showing otherwise is not proof but conjecture.

It's not like that wood, it's just that people who take it on themselves to show "evidence" never show the stuff they need to.

Behemoth wrote:Just like making non-sense up and calling it truth doesn't make it truth.

And no, bones aren't a good enough indicator because the cells in the specimens are long dead and can't be compared to living cells from present day tissues from humans, or apes, The same as carbon dating can't always be a perfect indicator of lifetime.

But it's okay, I already know you won't agree, so it doesn't matter.

So, essentially you are saying that you have made up your mind in advance to reject all possible evidence.

What i'm saying is i haven't seen any conclusive evidence, Just skulls.
I guess i can't explain it how i should, but i believe there should be much more evidence if at one time we had a whole species of these types of humans, evidence like that should be scattered all over the planet.
That's just a general assumption, and i'm not saying it necessarily fact.

Damnit Behe they found a skull . Just quit arguing and stop thinking for yourself.

Finding fossils of primates isn't going to be that easy to do because fossils aren't really all that common. The conditions necessary to produce a fossil simply don't happen that often.

In order for the skeleton of a land animal to be fossilized, it has to be buried so quickly and completely that it is largely sealed away from oxygen and absolutely kept away from scavengers yet still done gently enough to not crush the skeleton in the process. The most common method for producing a fossil is for some creature to be swept into the bottom of a lake and buried by a pyroclastic flow from a volcano, it is an incredibly rare event. Not only does it have to kill you without breaking your bones, but it also has to bury you deeply under clay/mud at the bottom of a lake someplace where your skeleton won't be disturbed till it literally turns to stone.

I can agree with that, but here's where my logic fails to see this and I think is what Behe was trying to get at. We evolved from these things over millions and millions of years. Did they not reproduce? Let's say there's roughly 6000 years of recorded history. I'm willing to concede to a different number. Evolution takes millions of years. How is it that we can pinpoint where man first originated and down to where our Alphabet starts, from a single point on the earth? Would there not have been many of these hominds populating the earth at that time spanning over millions of years? At the very least taking up space. Yet history seems to point towards a pretty lonely earth that in just 6000 years or so has 5 billion humans on it. Just 6000 years.

(More edits to come, since there are new posts going on here.)

Pretty much what Krom said. The conditions needed to produce a fossil are extraordinarily rare, to the point where we generally have very very few samples of any given prehistoric species. Just based on the slim odds of a fossil being created, much less a person happening to find one, it's no wonder that it's difficult to distinguish transitive features within a species. (Another potential reason is the fairly-recent theory of punctuated equilibrium, which explains these lack of features by proposing that most major changes in a species occur within fairly-limited time periods.) Even so, one thing fossils can show us is how features have changed between different species over millions of years, as with those hominid fossils. Besides the ever-popular dinosaurs, one example of this I've seen in numerous places is that of various ancestors of the modern horse, where you can see the general body plan getting larger and with proportionally-longer legs.

Behemoth wrote:What i'm saying is i haven't seen any conclusive evidence, Just skulls.
I guess i can't explain it how i should, but i believe there should be much more evidence if at one time we had a whole species of these types of humans, evidence like that should be scattered all over the planet.
That's just a general assumption, and i'm not saying it necessarily fact.

Krom and I have knocked the rarity part dead between us, I think, but more in general, those skulls pretty much are the conclusive evidence here. You talk about people not showing what they "need" to, but it's kind of hard to do that when you're dismissing the topics we bring up that are essentially smoking-gun evidence. As for the "odds" question you asked earlier, I'm not really sure which specific part you were referring to, but when we're talking about tangible fossils that we know for a fact are a certain age, there's not really much wiggle-room to bring up percentages. I really think you could do yourself a big service by reading a few of the Wikipedia articles that have been linked in here; there's a lot of info in the few that I've linked that gets into why we know what we know about those topics.

Very nicely regurgitated.

Behemoth wrote:But, calling anything 'fact' that you hypothesize happened millions of years ago (according to those of you who believe this) is in itself completely flawed scientifically, considering the goal of science is to test AND prove a hypothesis by experimentation and being able to get the same result consecutively over and over again, ONLY after that can it become a theory.

No. These are called observational sciences. For example, many of the things we witness in astronomy happened billions of years ago and can't be reproduced in a laboratory, but would you say that astronomy can't be science?

Not being able to reproduce supernovae in a laboratory is somewhat limiting. But that just means that we have to wait until a supernova naturally occurs before testing our predictions about them. It's the same case with biology. We might not be able to reproduce evolution in a lab, but we can still make useful predictions about it, like that, if evolution were true, then we should expect to find Y fossils in between X and Z.

edit: fixed example

(What the hell, I'll throw this in a new post instead. )

flip wrote:I can agree with that, but here's where my logic fails to see this and I think is what Behe was trying to get at. We evolved from these things over millions and millions of years. Did they not reproduce? Let's say there's roughly 6000 years of recorded history. I'm willing to concede to a different number. Evolution takes millions of years. How is it that we can pinpoint where man first originated and down to where our Alphabet starts, from a single point on the earth? Would there not have been many of these hominds populating the earth at that time spanning over millions of years? At the very least taking up space. Yet history seems to point towards a pretty lonely earth that in just 6000 years or so has 5 billion humans on it. Just 6000 years.

I'm sort of confused about what exactly you're asking here. Of course those early hominids reproduced a lot during their lifetimes, the same as any animal, but the reason we have so little evidence of them is because of the fossil scarcity mentioned above. If you mean that you think there should have been plenty of other types of hominids walking around at the time human civilization was first getting started, keep in mind that most of them had gone extinct by the time that Homo sapiens (our own species) appeared, and we gradually displaced those that hadn't. The most recent other group of hominids, the Neanderthals died out around 30,000 years ago. (Interestingly, there's evidence for inbreeding between Neanderthals and Homo sapiens in regions of what is now Europe.)

As far as human population goes, it's quite a lot longer than that. What biology refers to as anatomically modern humans first showed up about 200,000 years ago in parts of Africa, so there was a lot of time for our population to increase. However, an event called the Toba catastrophe around 70,000 years ago drastically reduced the population of humanity, maybe to as low as 1,000 breeding pairs; we can see from genetic evidence today that all living humans are descended from a (comparatively) very small number of ancestors. Still, though, 70,000 years is a long time for population to increase. Also, keep in mind that the world's population has undergone a period of drastic increase only during the last two or three centuries, when various technological advances allowed us to live much longer lives and drastically decrease infant mortality. Hell, even as recently as 1800, the world's population is estimated as being only around 1 billion.

Again regurgitated( lol you sound like a bible thumper) but I'll respond. I have some questions.

first showed up about 200,000 years ago in parts of Africa, so there was a lot of time for our population to increase

First I'm not sure the earth could even sustain that many people to reproduce for 130 million years. That's interesting in itself.

an event called the Toba catastrophe around 70,000 years ago drastically reduced the population of humanity, maybe to as low as 1,000 breeding pairs

Would this be such an event that could create a generous fossil record? I mean that's alot of breeding and multiplying, I'd think at least a few of them got mummified.

I'm also not interested in debating with an almost cut and paste from wikipedia.

EDIT:LOL Who here wants to fistfight with a neanderthal?

first showed up about 200,000 years ago in parts of Africa, so there was a lot of time for our population to increase

First I'm not sure the earth could even sustain that many people to reproduce for 130 million years. That's interesting in itself.

I'm not sure where you're getting that "130 million" idea. What do you mean by this?

an event called the Toba catastrophe around 70,000 years ago drastically reduced the population of humanity, maybe to as low as 1,000 breeding pairs

Would this be such an event that could create a generous fossil record? I mean that's alot of breeding and multiplying, I'd think at least a few of them got mummified.

If you read the article, you'll see that the cause of this event was a massive volcanic eruption that essentially created a global winter for several years. There's nothing about it that would have created any more or less fossilized remains than at any other period. And natural mummification is an incredibly rare process, and the results certainly wouldn't hold up over 70,000 years.

flip wrote:Again regurgitated( lol you sound like a bible thumper) but I'll respond.
...
I'm also not interested in debating with an almost cut and paste from wikipedia.

So...how else do you want me to debate, then? You keep asking questions about specific scientific topics, and I've been trying to give you a brief summary of those topics, along with a link to sources where you can learn more. I can't really go all "this is how I feel" when I'm dealing with what are essentially basic facts. How this compares to someone quoting Bible verses all over the place is beyond me.

Sry I got ahead of myself thinking about too many things at once. I'm thinking hominds and humans all at the same time and jumped ahead of myself. I'm gonna back up and regroup. What evidence do you have that this eruption occurred then because it explains the steep decline in population. That's important to you argument.

The weather changes were so rapid that within a lifetime, plants and animals someone grew up with would be replaced by completely different plants and animals.

Concerning the extinction of Neanderthals, is this even possible? Sounds way out there with NOTHING to support it.

http://www.wacona.com/promote/fossils/form.htm

Here fossils are described exactly as you and Krom describe.

http://www.answersincreation.org/neande ... ossils.htm

but here these fossils are not described to be found in those conditions. Are there different types of fossils or are they only created under certain conditions? I guess I'll read over some of this tomorrow because that needs to be established too.

Here are pictures of fossils claimed to have been created by a volcanic explosion.

http://www.unmuseum.org/fossil.htm

Okay...there are a few different things going on here, so I'll see what I can address:

About the evidence that the eruption itself occurred, the usual calling card of a historical eruption is a layer of volcanic ash and rock in the rock around that area. When you take a look at different layers (or strata) in a particular body of rock, they're generally arranged chronologically, based on whatever geologic/seismic/volcanic activity created them. So if you have two layers whose ages you know, and you see a layer of ash residue between them, you know there was an eruption between those two times. In the case of this particular eruption, that sort of evidence also identified the location of the supervolcano that erupted, which was apparently on the island of Sumatra.

The thing to note here, though, is that there isn't a universal consensus that this particular eruption caused the "bottleneck" that occurred in the human population. The timing generally fits, and there's the additional potential evidence of an Ice Age starting around the same time, but it's not a certainty. We know that the "bottleneck" definitely happened, because we can look at the DNA of people alive today and note certain common features, but we're not entirely sure why it happened. The "Toba catastrophe" just happens to be the most likely culprit.

On to the fossil stuff. To answer your last question first, fossils could definitely be created from a volcanic eruption, though that'd tend to happen only in the direct vicinity of the volcano, where falling ash could bury a dead organism before it got the chance to decompose (or straight-up bury it alive). In the case of this eruption, there may not have been any hominids living within a wide range of it, so even though it was utterly massive, it might not have created a significant number of human fossils.

Yes, there are actually several different types of fossils. The rarest type occurs when we get the actual body of an organism: this happens with insects trapped in amber, or animals sinking into tar pits (like at La Brea), or the few wooly mammoth carcasses that have been found buried in the Siberian permafrost. Some fossils are just traces of an organism's presence, like footprints or shell indentations in mud that later forms into sedimentary rock. There are instances where an organism will be encased in material and rot away, leaving a mold that gets filled in with some other type of sediment. The most common fossil type that people think of, the kind you're looking at when you see a dinosaur skeleton in a museum, occurs when water carrying sediments seeps into organic material, and the sediment deposits out, eventually replacing the original material while retaining its overall structure. In extremely rare cases, paleontologists have found fossils of this type that have even managed to preserve the structure of soft tissue like organs, though as you'd imagine, it's usually only the hard material like bones and teeth that sticks around long enough to be fossilized.

About those two differing links you posted, the first one seems to be an extremely-simplistic take on things, like elementary-school level. The samples in your second link are much more typical in general. (That's an interesting site in terms of overall focus, too.)

According to the Toba catastrophe theory it had global consequences, killing most humans then alive and creating a population bottleneck in Central Eastern Africa and India that affected the genetic inheritance of all humans today.[6][7]

According to the theory, only 10,000 (perhaps only 1,000) pairs of humans survived the disaster. Perhaps it led to the other hominids becoming extinct, though the Neanderthals certainly survived in Europe and Eurasia. After this, the Earth was colonised again, starting from Africa.

There is no direct evidence that the theory is correct. And there is no evidence for any other animal decline or extinction, even in environmentally sensitive species.[8] There is evidence that human habitation continued in India after the eruption.[9] The theory in its strongest form seems to be incorrect.

Again, this seems more like religion to me than truth. It's in essence exactly as the religious do. They have a set idea in their heads and instead of constantly challenging it, they start coming up with ideas of how this could be true. I find it disingenuous. Would have been nice if there was at least ONE external piece of evidence other than a "it could be this too" argument. Like a 6 inch layer of ash in one of these core samples they keep taking, from that area. When I see that, I'll put that over in the proven and solid box and try to build something on it.

There is no direct evidence that the theory is correct. And there is no evidence for any other animal decline or extinction, even in environmentally sensitive species.[8] There is evidence that human habitation continued in India after the eruption.[9] The theory in its strongest form seems to be incorrect.

From wikipedia.

There is no direct evidence that the theory is correct. And there is no evidence for any other animal decline or extinction, even in environmentally sensitive species.[8] There is evidence that human habitation continued in India after the eruption.[9] The theory in its strongest form seems to be incorrect.

Is this true or not?

flip wrote:

According to the Toba catastrophe theory it had global consequences, killing most humans then alive and creating a population bottleneck in Central Eastern Africa and India that affected the genetic inheritance of all humans today.[6][7]

According to the theory, only 10,000 (perhaps only 1,000) pairs of humans survived the disaster. Perhaps it led to the other hominids becoming extinct, though the Neanderthals certainly survived in Europe and Eurasia. After this, the Earth was colonised again, starting from Africa.

There is no direct evidence that the theory is correct. And there is no evidence for any other animal decline or extinction, even in environmentally sensitive species.[8] There is evidence that human habitation continued in India after the eruption.[9] The theory in its strongest form seems to be incorrect.

Again, this seems more like religion to me than truth. It's in essence exactly as the religious do. They have a set idea in their heads and instead of constantly challenging it, they start coming up with ideas of how this could be true. I find it disingenuous. Would have been nice if there was at least ONE external piece of evidence other than a "it could be this too" argument. Like a 6 inch layer of ash in one of these core samples they keep taking, from that area. When I see that, I'll put that over in the proven and solid box and try to build something on it.

There is no direct evidence that the theory is correct. And there is no evidence for any other animal decline or extinction, even in environmentally sensitive species.[8] There is evidence that human habitation continued in India after the eruption.[9] The theory in its strongest form seems to be incorrect.

From wikipedia.

Why are you quoting from the Simple English version, and not the one Top posted?

There is no direct evidence that the theory is correct. And there is no evidence for any other animal decline or extinction, even in environmentally sensitive species.[8] There is evidence that human habitation continued in India after the eruption.[9] The theory in its strongest form seems to be incorrect.

Is this true or not. I think it's important to at least establish that before going further. Both sources draw directly from the same theory.

The purpose of the Simple English wikipedia is to help those learning English, or possess developmental handicaps. It has a limited vocabulary, and presents articles in the most basic concepts.

Using it in this thread is like using an Illustrated Children's Bible for reference material - we are not the intended audience Simple English Wikipedia.

Lol exactly. In it's strongest and simplest terms is this true? Otherwise it's circular reasoning in it's most complicated of forms.

There is no direct evidence that the theory is correct. And there is no evidence for any other animal decline or extinction, even in environmentally sensitive species.[8] There is evidence that human habitation continued in India after the eruption.[9] The theory in its strongest form seems to be incorrect.

EDIT: In fact, the only thing external at all that I can find to support it is the need to explain the huge discrepancy in numbers.

Yes, the article is consistent with the sources it quotes.

You also need to consider the Simple English article contradicts the original English article, and the English article has numerous more sources.

Its been a while since I've read my children's bible, but I'm pretty sure it glossed over the specifics what happened in Sodom and Gomorrah before God laid down the hammer, but it doesn't mean it wasn't in the bible.

Right it took all the complicated and hard to understand concepts and condensed them to it's simplest terms so that even a child could understand it.