Welcome to
Science a GoGo's
Discussion Forums
Please keep your postings on-topic or they will be moved to a galaxy far, far away.
Your use of this forum indicates your agreement to our terms of use.
So that we remain spam-free, please note that all posts by new users are moderated.


The Forums
General Science Talk        Not-Quite-Science        Climate Change Discussion        Physics Forum        Science Fiction

Who's Online Now
0 members (), 181 guests, and 2 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Posts
Top Posters(30 Days)
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 4
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 1,696
M
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
M
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 1,696
Well I've Never really believed in the "Out of Africa Theory" anyway.
This seems more plausible...but its a very long article. From this weeks 'New Scientist' July 1st.
START
THE archaeological excavations at Dmanisi, in the Republic of Georgia, are a glorious exception to the rule that if you are in a hole, you should stop digging. What began as the excavation of a medieval town has turned into a pivotal site for our understanding of human evolution. So far, palaeoarchaeologists working there have unearthed five ancestral human skulls and other remains: the individuals they represent are now the central characters in a story whose plot is poised to undergo a major twist.

The story is known as Out of Africa. It tells of Africa as the centre of evolutionary innovation in our ancestors, and the springboard from which some of these hominins struck out into other continents. There are two main parts to the tale. The most familiar one charts the evolution of our own species in Africa around 200,000 years ago, and the subsequent migration of these modern humans throughout the world. The less well known part of the story concerns the first migration of our ancestors out of Africa, more than 1 million years earlier. It is this part of the story that is now being challenged for the first time. Last December, Nature ran a provocative critique by Robin Dennell of the University of Sheffield, UK, and Wil Roebroeks of Leiden University, the Netherlands, that concluded: "Most probably, we are on the threshold of a profound transformation of our understanding of early hominin evolution."

The "Out of Africa 1" story begins more than 2 million years ago when small upright African apes, known as australopithecines, start evolving into large and recognisably human creatures - the first members of our own genus, Homo. Eventually one of these, Homo erectus, strikes out to conquer Eurasia. At the heart of the tale of this first transcontinental migration lies the assumption that what made us human also propelled us out across the rest of the planet. This idea has a powerful romantic appeal, suggesting that exploration and settlement are primordial and defining human instincts. H. erectus had "a typically insatiable human wanderlust", according to palaeoanthropologist Ian Tattersall of the American Museum of Natural History in New York. What enabled these beings to satisfy the urge to boldly go was their package of characteristically human traits that distinguished them from the australopithecines: longer limbs, increased body and brain size, an omnivorous diet and the use of stone tools.

Until quite recently, all the evidence seemed to support this view and version of events. The earliest remains of H. erectus in Africa are about 1.8 million years old. At first these beings seem to have produced only simple flaked stone tools, but around 1.5 million years ago these are joined in the archaeological record by teardrop-shaped hand axes, suggesting that their creators had reached a new level of sophistication. In addition, the various hominin fossils found in east Asia over the past century (see "The shifting spotlight") had been dated at a million years old at most. The timing of all this seemed to attest to the emergence of H. erectus in Africa, its growing ingenuity there and then gradual spread eastward.

In the past decade, however, this sequence has begun to unravel. Fossils of H. erectus found at the Indonesian sites of Sangiran and Mojokerto are now believed to be over 1.5 million years old - possibly as much as 1.8 million years old. Those at Dmanisi have been dated at 1.7 million years or more. With these startlingly early dates from both ends of Asia it looks as though H. erectus materialised almost simultaneously in Africa, east Asia and a point in between. What's more, hand axes have proved to be red herrings. The stone tools associated with the migrant populations are no technological advance on the first ones to appear in the archaeological record, half a million years previously (see "Tooled up and ready to go"). As for brain size: with an adult average of about 700 cubic centimetres these colonisers had the edge on australopithecines, whose brains were under half a litre, but they were at the bottom end of the H. erectus range, and had only about half the volume of a modern human brain. It looks as though increased intelligence was not a prerequisite for migration.

A still more radical challenge to the supposed role of superior cognitive abilities in the dispersal of hominins comes from a mid-1990s fossil discovery that Dennell considers one of the most important of the past two decades. Australopithecine fossils had hitherto been found in the Great Rift Valley of eastern Africa and in the south of the continent. Then one turned up in Chad, in the middle of the continent, 2500 kilometres away from the Rift Valley. If australopithecines were able to colonise that region between 3 and 3.5 million years ago, argues Dennell, there is no reason why they should have stopped at the Red Sea. Ancient hominins would not have distinguished between Africa and Asia, and neither should we, he and Roebroeks argue. Those australopithecines in Chad date from an era when grasslands stretched from northern Africa to eastern Asia. Other animals moved freely across this landscape, so why not hominins? "If you were a herbivore that took grass seriously," Dennell remarks, "you could munch your way all across south-west Asia to northern China." He and Roebroeks suggest that we should re-imagine this vast transcontinental band of grass as a zone throughout which our ancestors also roamed. Dennell has dubbed it "Savannahstan".

The savannahs were the product of global cooling, which dried out moist woodlands, shifting the balance to grass. Over millions of years, the global climate gradually cooled, but there were also times when conditions altered quite abruptly. These shifts rearranged the fauna - species vanished, new species emerged. One of these climatic pulses occurred around 2.5 million years ago. In the Arctic, ice sheets spread. In eastern Africa, forest-adapted antelopes were replaced by those suited to savannah. New, robust australopithecines appeared, as did somewhat larger-brained hominins, Homo habilis, the first members of the Homo genus, and we also find the earliest known stone tools.

In a bold challenge to the conventional story, Dennell argues that hominins migrated out of Africa before H. erectus even evolved, and long before the dates of the oldest known hominin fossils in Asia. These first migrants were either australopithecines or H. habilis - he, like some prominent palaeoanthropologists, regards these two as much the same kind of creatures. For evidence that small stature was no obstacle to dispersal he points to the Dmanisi hominins. Not only do their brain sizes fit within the H. habilis range, evidence from a femur and a tibia, as yet unpublished, indicates that one of them may have weighed only about 54 kilograms and stood just 1.4 metres tall. Although the stature of the individuals at Sangiran and Mojokerto is unknown, hominins clearly did not need long legs to stride out of Africa.

?In a bold challenge to the conventional story, some argue that hominins migrated out of Africa before H. erectus evolved?What's more, Dennell has the makings of a story set in Savannahstan that could explain a key mystery of human evolution - what spurred the evolution of H. erectus itself. While H. habilis seems to have evolved in response to the cold snap around 2.5 million years ago, there is no such climate change in Africa coinciding with the emergence of the earliest known examples of H. erectus, around 1.8 million years ago. Nor does H. erectus have any clearly identifiable immediate predecessors. "Not for nothing has it been described as a hominin 'without an ancestor, without a clear past'," observe Dennell and Roebroeks.

Dennell's solution to the problem is beguilingly simple: perhaps we have been looking in the wrong place. "Maybe the Rift Valley was a cul-de-sac," Dennell suggests. Tongue in cheek perhaps, but the remark conveys his strong conviction that the importance of Asia has been unfairly neglected. At around the time H. erectus emerged some 1.8 million years ago, selective pressures to evolve would have been greater in Asia than in Africa, he argues. Traces of the global cooling pulse starting around 2.5 million years ago have been detected in the soils of China's Loess Plateau.

Beneath the silty loess are layers of red clay, which appear to have been blown there by westerly winds before the cooling began. Above these, the particles of loess decrease in size from north to south, indicating that they were deposited by northerly winds, the heavier particles falling to the ground first. So it appears that the winds changed when the climate cooled. This would have brought monsoons and polarised the years into seasons, with summers becoming increasingly arid over subsequent millennia, causing the grasslands to expand. Asia was the core of this process and Africa was peripheral, according to Dennell.

In this perspective the Dmanisi hominins may represent a missing link in the evolution of H. erectus, responding to climatic pressures but still retaining much in common with H. habilis. Australopithecines were adapted to open spaces in woodlands, ranging around relatively small areas, living off plants, seeds, small mammals and perhaps carcasses. As these open spaces expanded into savannah, the Dmanisi hominins would have faced pressures to evolve more human-like traits, increasing the distances over which they ranged, and turning more to animals as a source of food.

Dennell even goes so far as to suggest that the Dmanisi hominins might be ancestors of the later H. erectus in Africa. The most celebrated representative there is the 1.6-million-year-old "Turkana Boy". His tall stature, long limbs and body proportions epitomise adaptation to a hot, dry climate. In other words, African H. erectus might have Asian roots. If this is the case, Out of Africa 1 is a crucial part of the story of our own evolution, since H. erectus is generally thought to be a direct ancestor of modern humans.

?African H. erectus might have had Asian roots, adding a crucial twist to the story of our own evolution?Since Dennell and Roebroeks wrote their Nature review, American and Georgian researchers studying the Dmanisi finds have published a paper that points in a similar direction (Journal of Human Evolution, vol 50(2), p 115). Suggesting the finds be classed as Homo erectus georgicus, Philip Rightmire of Binghamton University, New York, and his colleagues conclude that Dmanisi may be "close to the stem from which H. erectus evolved". They also point to the possibility that the Dmanisi population's ancestors were H. habilis emigrants from Africa, and that the dates do not rule out the possibility that H. erectus evolved in Asia. "For me, the evidence from Dmanisi is critical," says Rightmire. "It seems to me that such a population could well be ancestral to H. erectus in Africa and also to H. erectus in the Far East." But he anticipates that rewriting the origin and dispersal of H. erectus will be a slow process. "We're not likely to see a major breakthrough immediately."

Further research that broadly chimes with Dennell and Roebroeks's arguments comes from Alan Templeton of Washington University, St Louis (Yearbook of Physical Anthropology, vol 48, p 33). By comparing clusters of DNA that vary between individuals and tend to be inherited together, geneticists can identify when particular mutations arose, and use these to map relationships within or between species. Until a few years ago, they had to rely on DNA from mitochondria or sex chromosomes, but it is now becoming possible to increase the resolution of such maps by using data from the rest of the genome. Comparing 25 DNA regions in the genomes of people from across the world, Templeton found evidence for an expansion out of Africa around 1.9 million years ago, and that gene flow between African and Eurasian populations - in both directions - was established by 1.5 million years ago. Not only do these findings suggest that migration began earlier than previously thought, it also looks as though hominins were moving back and forth between Eurasia and Africa.

"The hypotheses Dennell and Roebroeks present are testable with molecular genetic data," Templeton says, "so I think that the prospects for testing some of their alternatives to 'Out of Africa 1' will be excellent in the near future." Only four years ago, when he first conducted an analysis of this kind, there were insufficient results for him to detect any expansion out of Africa between 1 and 3 million years ago. Increasingly, however, researchers looking for genetic variation among individuals are also recording their geographical origins - just the information Templeton needs to do his analysis. "I anticipate greater and greater statistical resolution of these older events in human evolutionary history," he says. "Genetics will play an increasing and important role in testing their ideas in conjunction with new fossil and archaeological discoveries."

For Dennell, however, the objects in the ground are what matters. He is keen to look for hominin remains in Asia to balance the generous legacies of the Rift Valley and southern Africa. Unfortunately, the countries he most wants to search - Saudi Arabia, Iran, Afghanistan - read like a list of places not to visit these days. A site in Pakistan where he found stone tools in the 1980s dating from 1.9 million years ago is also now off limits because of the political turbulence that has spread across the region. It seems that Asia will not give up its secrets easily, but Dennell is convinced that in this case, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. The search may prove difficult but the rewards are potentially enormous, amounting to nothing less than the rewriting of human prehistory.

From issue 2558 of New Scientist magazine, 01 July 2006, page 34
***
THERE ARE MANY FURTHER Pictures and comments by others. But I have not included those to save space. Since the full article will be put on the Net, by New Scientist next week.


.

.
"You will never find a real Human being - Even in a mirror." ....Mike Kremer.


.
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 134
A
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
A
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 134
mikey

this stuff is great, laughable but great; can't let this one pass w/o comment...

i'm gonna try and quote some excerpts below (in order so that you'll be able to refer back the original and locate the context) and follow each with my own jazz, eh cool

Quote:
What began as the excavation of a medieval town has turned into a pivotal site for our understanding of human evolution
i love these grand claims ("pivotal site"), which of course makes the last several pivotal sites less pivotal and requires us to rethink and redraw the imaginary lines of alleged ancestry and descent...not to mention scrambling the previously assumed dating scenario

Quote:
Most probably, we are on the threshold of a profound transformation of our understanding of early hominin evolution
oooo...we've got a basketful of powerful neuro/phsycolinguistic word images goin' on here, eh (threshold, profound transformation)

but how many times have we heard virtually the same story before...almost everytime an alleged "ancestor" is discovered (ie, "we're going to have rewrite the story of human evolution" or "this will radically change our understanding of human evolution as we now know it" or somesuch yadayadayada)

the necessary inference here is that evolution is assumed to be a fact when in fact the only real fact about evolution is that it is not a fact

and then of course while we are assured that evolution is a fact as sure as the earth orbits the sun, we are careful to preface this latest claim with the safety net phrase "most probably" so that we can feel good about changing the story again when the next "ancestor" discovery is made


Quote:
At the heart of the tale of this first transcontinental migration lies the assumption
tale indeed, as in fairy, made up, imagined

and then there is the *assumption*...and therein lies the rub...we scream and restate ad nauseum: fact, fact, fact, fact, but we forget the myriad assumptions upon which the so-called fact is predicated

only if all of the assumptions are true/real can we reasonably conclude that evolution is a fact, and even then it would not *necessarily* follow but would at least be reasonable...the problem is that so many of the assumptions associated with evolution have been shown to be in conflict with the evidence a/o reality...but we go blissfully on in our willful ignorance

Quote:
This idea has a powerful romantic appeal, suggesting that exploration and settlement are primordial and defining human instincts
he he he hooo, beeeeautiful

so even though the out of africa story was touted as fact (and this has long been debated but that didn't stop lots of folks from screaming fact anyway) apparently it wasn't based on fact or facts or objective evidence but rather on subjective appeal...and *romantic* appeal at that

yeeeah, baby; go 'head on wit' yo' good se'f

and then we have "suggesting" rather than assuring...but don't worry, it's still a fact :-)

Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 134
A
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
A
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 134
Quote:
over the past century...timing of all this seemed to attest to...In the past decade, however, this sequence has begun to unravel
so for the past 100yrs it was a "fact" based on "x" assumptions...but now that those assumptions have been falsified or are the subject of serious doubt...ahh don't worry, the conclusive fact is still a fact...because now we've got some more assumptions/interpretations of evidence that are better...at least until they come under more fire because we come up with still more assumptions in place of these

but no problem, because the one thing we're sure about is the conclusion -- evolution is a fact...so we'll just keep on rethinking and rewriting this plastic elastic story until the story supports what we already know to be the fact

evolution is a fact...got it (don't worry about the what, when, where, who, how, and why; we can debate that until the sun rises in the west; even though we don't know or understand the process, we DO understand the outcome...it's already been decided)

oh yeah, i get it

Quote:
With these startlingly early dates
yeah, well, we actually predicted (assumed) a dating scenario that was quite different

but since we aren't going to change our preconceived outcome...we'll just change our predictions (btw -- this happens with virtually every new *ancestor* discovery too)

we're gooooooood *just-so* story writers with lots of imagination so we'll just keep rewriting the story until we get it to support our desired outcome -- evolution is a fact (NOT!:-)

Quote:
It looks as though increased intelligence was not a prerequisite
another assumption dashed against the rocks, oh my

Quote:
Over millions of years, the global climate gradually cooled, but there were also times when conditions altered quite abruptly
we believe in geological gradualism, uniformitarianism...kinda

but sometimes we evoke catastrophism...mm, when we absolutely have to

we believe in biological gradualism, uniformitarianism...mostly

but sometimes we evoke punk eek (punc eq, punctuated equilibrium)...mmm, when we just can't get the record to support gradualism, uniformitarianism (which is actually virtually always) eek

we believe in evolutionary divergence...well, except when we need to invoke evolutionary convergence

and we must not forget to repeat the "millions of years" mantra

Quote:
A still more radical challenge to the supposed role of superior cognitive abilities
not only was our evolutionary prediction/assumption about the role of superior cognition wrong in one aspect but it was radically wrong in this one

but let's not reject our known conclusion that evolution is a fact, let's rather re-massage the data to fit the "fact"

Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 134
A
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
A
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 134
Quote:
He and Roebroeks suggest that we should re-imagine...
sssublimely sssuperb...

re-imagine indeed...our earlier scenarios were not based on actual facts but rather on a little bit of misinterpreted evidence and a lot of imagination

and since things haven't really seemed to fit for some time anyway, it's time for us to open up our imaginations and re-imagine; it's time for us to come up with another just-so story to try and explain the one known fact that evolution is a fact

got it? got it!

Quote:
In a bold challenge to the conventional story, Dennell argues that hominins migrated out of Africa before H. erectus even evolved, and long before the dates of the oldest known hominin fossils in Asia. These first migrants were either australopithecines or H. habilis - he, like some prominent palaeoanthropologists, regards these two as much the same kind of creatures
first, we are going to rewrite the so-called "timeline of pre-human/human history"

second, in one part of the article they seem to be saying that out of africa is out of date...here they are saying that it is still out of africa but a lot earlier than previously claimed

that instead of h erectus being the out of africa candidate, it is now australopithecines or h habilis that went out of africa and later evolved into h erectus, etc in asia a/o europe

h habilis has been a joke taxon for some time...on the one hand, you have the guys that say habilis is different from australopithecines and should be classed with homo...on the other hand, you've got the guys that say australopithecines and habilis are essentially the same creature and that habilis should be reclassified as australopithecines habilis rather than remain in the homo genus

then you have still other guys that say that there are at least two (some say more) different "species" presently residing in the h habilis wastebin...and no one seems to be able to agree on which ones are which...for example:

Quote:
Of the several dozen specimens that have been said at one time or another to belong in this species [habilis], at least half probably don't. But there is no consensus as to which 50 percent should be excluded. No one anthropologist's 50 percent is quite the same as another's. (Leakey and Lewin, Origins Reconsidered, 1992)
(the quote immediately above is not a quote from mike's source in new scientist but rather from another source and is quoted to support my point --am)

you've got your "splitters" (paleontologists/paleoanthroplogists that like to name "new speicies") and your "lumpers" (those that say many of the so-called different species are in actually the same and shouldn't be given new species names...of course, the splitters are attractive to many scientists because which scientist wouldn't like to have his name associated with the discovery of a species or several)

the so-called "history of man" or "ancestry of man" is a HUGE MESS, a hodge-podge of nonsense...but don't let that cloud your vision of the fact that evolution is a fact, eh :-)

besides, we are trying to rewrite the history so that it does make sense...okay? okay!

Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 134
A
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
A
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 134
Quote:
Nor does H. erectus have any clearly identifiable immediate predecessors. "Not for nothing has it been described as a hominin 'without an ancestor, without a clear past'," observe Dennell and Roebroeks.
he he hack hack he he hooo

okay...h erectus has no ancestor, no clear past, no clearly identifiable immediate predecessors

ahem, hack hack...mmm, huh?

okay, okay, don't worry, evolution is still a fact...we just haven't sorted it out yet...

but keep the faith, baby

Quote:
Dennell's solution to the problem is beguilingly simple: perhaps we have been looking in the wrong place. "Maybe the Rift Valley was a cul-de-sac," Dennell suggests. Tongue in cheek perhaps, but the remark conveys his strong conviction that the importance of Asia has been unfairly neglected
hey, no problem, the explanation is simple...we've just been looking in the wrong place(s) all this time

there, see...simple

okay, well, he did say *perhaps*, eh

and "maybe the rift valley was a cul-de-sac"

so we've classifying the remains in the wrong taxons, predicting/assuming the wrong timetables, looking in the wrong places and generally just been wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong but it doesn't matter because we still came out with the right conclusion, we're still right...evolution is a fact, it's just a fact waiting to be explained and verified eek laugh :p wink

got it? yep!

Quote:
In this perspective the Dmanisi hominins may represent a missing link in the evolution of H. erectus
mmm...apparently one of many missing links since h erectus doesn't have "any clearly identifiable immediate predecessors" and is "'without an ancestor, without a clear past'"

at least these guys had the decency, the intellectual integrity to acknowledge some of this in this article...

but they only do it to point to why their theory is better...because the previuos paradigm is clearly bankrupt

Quote:
Dennell even goes so far as to suggest that the Dmanisi hominins might be ancestors of the later H. erectus in Africa
lots more ambiguous language here, eh ("suggest," "might be" :-)

so it's pretty simple now...

australopithcenes/habilenes migrated out of africa into asia and europe...then later evolved into h erectus...but either before they evolved into h erectus, or some of the ones that didn't evolve, went back down into africa and evolved into h erectus there...and then of course later migrated back out of africa, back into asia and europe...as h erectus

now how's that for a "just-so story"? a whopper of a tale, eh :-)

Quote:
In other words, African H. erectus might have Asian roots. If this is the case, Out of Africa 1 is a crucial part of the story of our own evolution, since H. erectus is generally thought to be a direct ancestor of modern humans.
saaaay, that is pretty spiffy

"...generally thought..." we wanna make sure and leave plenty of wiggle room because the story will probably change a few dozen more times in the next 20-50yrs

Quote:
African H. erectus might have had Asian roots, adding a crucial twist to the story of our own evolution?
oooooouu, pretty cool, eh

african h erectus might have had asian roots

now that IS a crucial twist...except that if it came out of africa before it went into asia and then went back into africa...what's the major point???

i guess if an african primate went on walkabout and later returned, albeit much wiser and better traveled, or if he didn?t make it back and his kiddo?s kiddos did, then that has GOT to put a crucial twist on human evolution

and it is a crucial twist...mmm, somehow

but don't be confused by the details, don't be confused by the facts, don't let the facts get in your way...just park all of the conflict and confusion under the rug, and remember...evolution is still a fact...and that is that

Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 134
A
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
A
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 134
Quote:
Suggesting the finds be classed as Homo erectus georgicus, Philip Rightmire of Binghamton University, New York, and his colleagues conclude that Dmanisi may be "close to the stem from which H. erectus evolved
now we're getting somewhere...maybe...because dmanisi "may be" close to the stem that led directly to h erectus

that will surely get them millions in research dollars...even if later, as so often happens, the claims are much revised from those originally splashed all over the news headlines throughout the world (but when the find is later found to be not nearly so spectacular, there is either no retraction made or a clarification is posted on page 63 somewhere close to the obituaries or something else that no one reads, or maybe it might get written up in the science journals that more than half of the scientists don't even read much of, much less the general public...so the original grand claim is the only thing that remains in the minds of most...more so-called "evidence" for evolution :-)

cool, uh

Quote:
They also point to the possibility that the Dmanisi population's ancestors were H. habilis emigrants from Africa, and that the dates do not rule out the possibility that H. erectus evolved in Asia
more ambiguous language surrounded by grandiose tones ("the possibility")

more just-so stories

more imagination

more blah blah blah

more of the same jazz

...but not much science...

Quote:
"It seems to me that such a population could well be ancestral to H. erectus in Africa and also to H. erectus in the Far East." But he anticipates that rewriting the origin and dispersal of H. erectus will be a slow process. "We're not likely to see a major breakthrough immediately." (emp mine --am)
well, we're glad it seems that way to you...

then again, you are dedicated to the materialistic evolutionary worldview so we're thankful for your opinion but...let's have a little more science and less of the just-so stuff

why, if it were indeed true, would it take so long to rewrite the evolutionary tale of the origin and dispersal of h erectus? because reigning paradigms are difficult to overturn, often taking a generation or two or more

or because the "new, spectacular, challenging" evidence is really just a splash in the pan good for some grant money and doesn't warrant it (even if the reigning paradigm isn't powerfully supported by the evidence and the conflicts continue to mount up)

changing paradigms is tough stuff to wit:

  • haekel's biogenetic law, "ontogeny recapitulates philogeny" -- the science textbooks have removed haekel's name (at least some have), and some have even removed the phrase "biogenetic law"...but most still carry the illustration...which has been known for more than 100yrs to be false (among embryologists), and widely known among biologists to be false for about 50yrs

    but the vast majority of average joes and many scientists still believe it to be true...and many that know better still teach it as though it were true

    the light/dark (melanic) moths are still used as a key support for evolution both in textbooks and by teachers...even though kittlewell's research has been known to have been falsely reported and FAKED (like haekel's work before him)

    and on and on it goes (pesticide resistance, antibiotic resistance, etc, etc, etc)

Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 134
A
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
A
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 134
Quote:
By comparing clusters of DNA that vary between individuals and tend to be inherited together, geneticists can identify when particular mutations arose, and use these to map relationships within or between species. Until a few years ago, they had to rely on DNA from mitochondria or sex chromosomes, but it is now becoming possible to increase the resolution of such maps by using data from the rest of the genome. Comparing 25 DNA regions in the genomes of people from across the world, Templeton found evidence for an expansion out of Africa around 1.9 million years ago, and that gene flow between African and Eurasian populations - in both directions - was established by 1.5 million years ago. Not only do these findings suggest that migration began earlier than previously thought, it also looks as though hominins were moving back and forth between Eurasia and Africa.
plenty of ambiguous but grand sounding language in this pericope

lots of folks like to talk about the molecular data but it too is based on a huge and numerous (not to mention faulty) assumptions

and rest assured that if there is any conflict between the fossils and the molecular data, the paleontologists are here and quick to remind us that the bones have established priority and will carry the argument (rather than the molecular data)

so we like to talk about the molecular data and how that helps the cause (evolution)...even though it doesn't support evolution either...but if there is a rub, the molecular data gets spurned, shelved, or tossed in a bin while the fossils carry the day...as is made very clear in the following statement by one of the authors:

Quote:
For Dennell, however, the objects in the ground are what matters
and finally,

Quote:
The search may prove difficult but the rewards are potentially enormous, amounting to nothing less than the rewriting of human prehistory
and there it is again, that powerful closing and abiding thought: this discovery will [probably] result in a rewriting of human prehistory

the "rewards" (financial) will probably be great for a few scientists, but the rewards for science will probably be pretty slim

anyway, millions of years are a fact, evolution is fact, and when we're done sorting out all of the confusion and conflict in the details (the devil is in the details) we'll get back to you

have a great day...and keep the faith (evolution is a fact!)

NOT :-)

Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
anyman wrote:
"lots of folks like to talk about the molecular data but it too is based on a huge and numerous (not to mention faulty) assumptions"

I see you haven't changed since the last time your broke your promise to go away and stay there.

Faulty assumption? Really? Name them! And provide a reference to an objective source supporting your nonsense that the assumptions are faulty.

Didn't your momma teach you lying is a sin?


DA Morgan
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 414
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 414
"...the only real fact about evolution is that it is not a fact."

Really.

You sure have an itchy "Add Reply" finger, anyman.


When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying the cross."
--S. Lewis
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 134
A
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
A
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 134
yeah, sorry about the multiple posts

the system kept telling me: "sorry wait 30 seconds and try again" or something like that, which i did until i got a "thanks for posting" msg

there are actually only 6 different posts instead of 12 (from me)

the first two or three got multiposted, the latter 3 or 4 went a little smoother

still trying to figure out the new forum format

Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 636
J
jjw Offline
Superstar
Offline
Superstar
J
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 636
anyman:

You are on a roll and it is fun.
I doubt that Mike anticipated that onslought.
jjw

Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 134
A
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
A
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 134
i dunno, jjw

mikey and i go back to the spring of '97 on this board

he probably posted it for bait

just to see if i still had it in me :-)

Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
Evolution *is* a fact. And it is also a theory. The two things are not mutually exclusive. Also, theories are not lesser than facts. I realize that this goes against the lay perception of what those terms mean.

There is only one reason why people reject evolution - what they "know" about it amounts to nothing more than barbershop gossip.

Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 901
B
Superstar
Offline
Superstar
B
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 901
Quote:
Originally posted by TheFallibleFiend:
Also, theories are not lesser than facts.
Fact: Knowledge or information based on real occurrence.

Theory: A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.

How can it be said that theories are not lesser than facts? Or have the definitions of fact and theory been redefined for the expert, and us laymen are working with inferior, out of date versions?

On the basis of the above definitions, evolution is certainly not a fact, especially in the usual scientific sense. E=mc? is a fact.

A species evolving into other species is not testable, repeatable or even observable. It is simply a very good theory when the available evidence is taken into account.

Scientists may feel that to call evolution a theory is to give to much ground to creationists, but it would seem to me to be much more honest a position.


**************************


And I notice that people feel free to insult Anyman and accuse him of having Barbershop knowledge regarding evolution, but no one has actually made much of an answer to his points. Far too much of that goes on here - I expect more from such an intelligent community. If his writing is so baseless then it shouldn't be too difficult a task to effectively refute it.


Blacknad.

Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 134
A
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
A
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 134
thanks for your thought

that clears things up...immensely

see, evolution is a fact

get it? got it!

well kinda...mmmaybe not

Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 134
A
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
A
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 134
i guess i need to learn to quote everytime in this new format or at least somehow identify folks if my response is more direct than general

your post wasn't there when i began to respond, blacknad

on the old board, you posted directly under those you were responding to, things were clearer and you could see the big board picture much more easily

i'm sure there are some advantages to this one; i'll just have to adjust

~~~~~

thanks for your thought, fallible one

that clears things up immensely

see, evolution is a fact

get it? got it!

well kinda...mmmaybe not

Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
I'll make a guess. In every instance of a creationist that I have argued with in person or over the net, said creationist has proven himself/herself to be accutely ignorant in the subject of what evolution actually is, what it actually means, and what it actually predicts. They then go on to repeat some comic-book version of a scientific law which evolution supposedly violates and then emumerate a list of "questions" they have been spoon-fed from various websites and acquaintances and their parents and preachers. Typically these "questions" are not questions at all, but absolute statements about some aspect of evolution which amount to urban legend among those who are too intellectually lazy to do any actual homework on the subject. This way they can complain vociferously when they get lambasted they can claim that "you can't even ask questions about evolution." Of course this a blatant lie. The problem isn't about the asking of the question. It's about making the false statements about evolution.

Yes. Evolution is a fact. First, it is an observed fact. And even the "intelligentsia" among creationists admit this. After first they denied it altogether; then they said it was true, but that it never resulted in speciation. Now they say it CAN produce speciation, but it can't produce a new KIND. So, yes. Evolution is a fact. And that's not even a significant point of debate even among the people on your side.

Secondly, and even more importantly, you don't have to actually SEE something for it to be considered a fact. No one has ever seen an electron, but their existence is considered a fact. The idea that we "absolute proof" or that we have to actually witness something to accept it's existence is convincing only to those with a comic-book understanding of science.

The central problem is this: creationist leaders depend on the fact that their followers are intellectually lazy. They will read the science-lite presented on AiG, etc, but they're not actually going to read any real science books or try to actually understand the issues. They actually train people on the site on how to not really debate the subject. "Now them thar matEARialISTic evilutionists will say you're ignorant! See! That thar just shows how shaky thar own position is!"

IDers and other creationists invariably believe that they have "studied enough" about it to conclude that at least evolution is no better than creationism. They then go on to make some utterly stupid statement, essentially repeating an urban legend they heard. If they would do the slightest amount of actual homework, they wouldn't have made so many insanely stupid assertions. OTOH, if they did their homework, there wouldn't be an argument to begin with.

Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
Falliable wrote:
"creationist leaders depend on the fact that their followers are intellectually lazy."

And you can add to that profoundly and often wilfully ignorant.


DA Morgan
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 414
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 414
Quote:
Originally posted by TheFallibleFiend:
...In every instance of a creationist that I have argued with in person or over the net, said creationist has proven himself/herself to be accutely ignorant in the subject of what evolution actually is, what it actually means, and what it actually predicts. They then go on to repeat some comic-book version of a scientific law which evolution supposedly violates and then emumerate a list of "questions" they have been spoon-fed from various websites and acquaintances and their parents and preachers. Typically these "questions" are not questions at all, but absolute statements about some aspect of evolution which amount to urban legend among those who are too intellectually lazy to do any actual homework on the subject. This way they can complain vociferously when they get lambasted they can claim that "you can't even ask questions about evolution."...
That's exactly what I've seen. Arguments with them amount to semantic games, at best. Mostly it's:

1. Explain evolution or some scientific principle or theory incorrectly;
2. Attack that incorrect idea.

One of my favorites is, "Evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics."


When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying the cross."
--S. Lewis
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
tff: "creationist leaders depend on the fact that their followers are intellectually lazy."

da: And you can add to that profoundly and often wilfully ignorant.

tff: The "profoundly" part is a direct consequence of intellectual laziness combined with the "wilfully ignorant" part.

It's an interesting situation - or it would be, if these guys didn't waste so much of people's time.

I recall when I was very young I was very good at basic arithmetic. I could do math much faster in my head than most people could do on a calculator. This was true all the way through HS. I'm very slow now, because I've taken to using a calculator for everything, but there was a time when I could easily multiply 3 digit by 2 digit numbers in my head. Nevertheless, I never actually understood arithmetic. I could do it, but I didn't fully believe it or understand it. It was almost a miracle to me. Much later, in college, when I learned about groups and fields, I felt that I finally was justified in actually believing it.
The thing is, though, in those early years it never occurred to me that all the mathematicians who had ever lived were essentially lying to me or that they were stupid. I just figured that I was not getting it and that if I were patient and persistent that I'd eventually figure it out.

In any case, I realized very early on that I didn't know enough to criticize people who clearly knew more than I did. But this is exactly what creationists are doing - most of them know almost nothing about evolution. Almost all of them LOTS about some strawman version of evolution that their preacher or their parents told them about - almost none of them actually knows anything of consequence on the subject that an actual practicing evoluionary scientist would recognize as a part of the theory. But that's not the weird thing. Everybody's ignorant about something. The weird thing is that these guys INVARIABLY assert that they have "studied evolution" and that they have "researched sufficiently" to come to some conclusions about it - I mean, some of them - many of them - are absolutely convinced that they actually know something about the theory. These people are utterly delusional. And that is interesting in a very weird and disappointing way.

Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 4

Link Copied to Clipboard
Newest Members
debbieevans, bkhj, jackk, Johnmattison, RacerGT
865 Registered Users
Sponsor

Science a GoGo's Home Page | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Contact UsokÂþ»­¾W
Features | News | Books | Physics | Space | Climate Change | Health | Technology | Natural World

Copyright © 1998 - 2016 Science a GoGo and its licensors. All rights reserved.

Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5