backtop


Print 371 comment(s) - last by Jaybus.. on Oct 19 at 5:14 PM


Ardi, shown here in an artist's sketch, is a recently discovered ancestor of man which lived 4.4 million years ago in African woodland. The discovery is the closest to a "missing link" found yet.  (Source: Time Magazine)

Ardi's skeleton graces the cover of the journal Science. While it may not look like much, the skeleton is among the most complete hominid skeletons found to date and an appealing find.  (Source: Science)
Newly discovered species is close to "missing link" and provides more compelling proof of human evolution

If there's one thing that recent paleontological discoveries have taught us, it's to expect the unexpected.  A recently discovered miniature T. Rex predecessor cast doubt on many theories, including the idea that T. Rex evolved its bizarre proportions (small arms, huge legs) over time (its ancestor had them too) and that it was a scavenger (the mini-Rex was fast and ideally suited for hunting).

Now an equally appealing discovery had been made.  Scientists excavating in the dusty Middle Awash region of Ethiopia have unearthed an amazingly complete skeleton of a new species of hominid -- an ancestor to modern man -- which they have named Ardipithecus ramidus, nicknamed "Ardi".

The find began in 1994 with the unearthing of a hominid hand. One and a half decades later, Ardi was revealed in her full form, a skeleton consisting of over 125 bone pieces.  Among the most complete hominid skeletons found to date, Ardi is approximately 4.4 million years old, 1.2 million years older than the famous "Lucy" (Australopithecus afarensis) skeleton.  Ardi is in fact the oldest hominid found to date.

Ardi is an irresistibly appealing find to most.  It provides unprecedented insight into how humans and apes diverged from a common ancestor approximately 7 million years ago -- closer to Ardi's time than we are to Ardi's.  And the discovery reveals a shocking revelation -- Chimpanzees and other close ape relatives might actually have evolved more radically than humans did over that 7 million years.

Kent State University anthropologist C. Owen Lovejoy, a member of the Middle Awash team, states, "This skeleton flips our understanding of human evolution.  It's clear that humans are not merely a slight modification of chimps, despite their genomic similarity."

Ardi is closer to humans than chimps.  Measuring in at 47 in. (120 cm) tall and 110 lb. (50 kg), Ardi likely walked with a strange gait, lurching side to side, due to lack of an arch in its feet, a feature of later hominids.  It had somewhat monkey-like feet, with opposable toes, but its feet were not flexible enough to grab onto vines or tree trunks like many monkeys -- rather they were good enough to provide extra support during quick walks along tree branches -- called palm walking.

However, most of Ardi's time was spent upright on the ground.  Long dexterous fingers showcase Ardi's humanlike characteristics; its wrists were also more flexible than apes.  These features helped it to catch things on the ground and carry objects.

Another surprise comes in Ardi's environment.  Ardi lived in a lush grassy African woodland, with creatures such as colobus monkeys, baboons, elephants, spiral-horned antelopes, hyenas, shrews, hares, porcupines, bats,  peacocks, doves, lovebirds, swifts and owls.  Fig trees grew around much of the area, and it is speculated that much of Ardi's diet consisted of these figs.

The surprise about the environment is that it lays to rest the theory that hominids developed upright walking when Africa's woodland-grassland mix changed to grassy savanna.  Under this now theory, hominids began standing and walking upright as a way of seeing predators over the tall grasses.  The discovery of Ardi -- an earlier upright walker that lived in woodland -- greatly weakens this theory.

Scientists have theorized that Ardi may have formed human-like relationships with pairing between single males and females.  Evidence of this is found in the male's teeth, which lack the long canines that gorillas and other non-monogamous apes use to battle for females.  Describes Professor Lovejoy, "The male canine tooth is no longer projecting or sharp. It's no longer weaponry."

There's still debate over parts of the creature's skeleton.  In particular, the pelvis was smashed and had to be extensively reconstructed using digital technology.  According to Penn State paleoanthropologist Alan Walker, who was not involved in the discovery, "Tim [White] showed me pictures of the pelvis in the ground, and it looked like an Irish stew."

Still, with over 110 remnants discovered from over 35 other Ardi's and a complete skeleton, the find is undeniably exciting.  States Professor Walker, "[Ardi is] a lovely Darwinian creature.  It has features that are intermediate between the last common ancestor and australopithecines."

And Professor Lovejoy adds, "When we started our work [in the Middle Awash] the human fossil record went back to about 3.7 million years.  This isn't just a skeleton; we've been able to put together a fantastic, high-resolution snapshot of a period that was a blank."





Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Awesome Discovery
By Shmuck63 on 10/2/2009 10:29:15 AM , Rating: 5
I get a kick out these comments. People would rather believe human mythology and heresay passed down over generations than to believe fosil records, genetic evidence, laws of physics and astrophysical probabilities.

We are all sheep and will believe what we are told by those that lead us.




RE: Awesome Discovery
By B3an on 10/2/2009 10:38:02 AM , Rating: 1
Well it is mostly an ameircan site. There is a far higher percentage of backwards religious people over there.
Move to Europe and join the rest of us sane educated people.


RE: Awesome Discovery
By ClownPuncher on 10/2/2009 12:15:17 PM , Rating: 2
Religion in itself is not so backwards. There is nothing in the bible that discounts a theory of evolution, meaning it may or may not be probable, but we could have been created then evolved to our current state.

It is not what I believe, but I think there are many religious beliefs that are perfectly valid.


RE: Awesome Discovery
By rfon on 10/2/2009 4:08:53 PM , Rating: 2
Religions that follow the Bible and Koran would contradict The Theory of Evolution inasmuch as Adam and Eve were said to be created by God in a few days.

However, Buddhism (which is really a philosophy, rather than a religion) makes no claims about creation or about a God. The Buddha in fact told his followers to question all dogmas and beliefs. Buddhism therefore would be completely compatible with the Darwinian Theory of Evolution.


RE: Awesome Discovery
By GTVic on 10/2/09, Rating: -1
RE: Awesome Discovery
By SteveRw on 10/2/2009 5:28:20 PM , Rating: 3
For one thing- Genesis defines days in the context of separations between literal light and dark- evenings- then mornings, before each new day etc, with no hint of longer periods. I'm not sure what more the author could have possibly done to make clear that he was talking about definate periods of literal days.

And so that was the interpretation as understood by hundreds of versions of christianity for thousands of years. So if it is actually talking about eons instead- the author had a terrible communication problem at the very least! In the end it took science to unravel what he actually 'must have' meant?


RE: Awesome Discovery
By Octoberblue on 10/2/2009 6:30:17 PM , Rating: 5
Incorrect on a couple of fronts. The Hebrew for "Day" used in Genesis is the same Hebrew word used to represent an indefinitely long period of time literally everywhere else it is used in the Old Testament. The Hebrew word for a specific 24 hour period did exist, but it wasn't used here. Evening and Morning are also poetic language used for beginning and ending periods of an epoch.

More importantly, it is a myth that Christians or Jews always believed this to be a 24 hour period. The most prominent Christian and Jewish thinkers of the 1st - 3rd centuries believed these to be long periods of time. And their belief was based on the text alone, long before science had established an ancient earth. The ignorant and arrogant took them for 24 hour periods, and this viewpoint was magnified by the reactionary mobs of the early 20th century.

And besides all of that, the Creation Song of Genesis was never a scientific treatise. Imagine that you were God, and your priority was not to explain physics, but to communicate a basic understanding of Your role in the Universe and in the lives of humans to the widest possible audience of very primitive people. Poetry and songs work best for that. Not being literal does not equal not being true.


RE: Awesome Discovery
By SteveRw on 10/2/2009 7:16:54 PM , Rating: 2
Yes 'Yom' like 'Day' can be used to mean one literal day of daylight with or without night- or an indefinate period.
Just as in English, we know by the context, which meaning is intended...

"And God began calling the light day, but the darkness he called night..."

or should this then read "And God began calling the light an indefinately long period of time?!"

Like I said, could the author really be any more specific? If I were God trying to get across a simple understanding, I wouldn't go so far out of my way to convey the wrong meaning.


RE: Awesome Discovery
By Oregonian2 on 10/3/2009 3:19:00 PM , Rating: 3
For that matter, Genesis has two completely different creation-of-man versions of story. Clarity wasn't optimized. :-)


RE: Awesome Discovery
By Gzus666 on 10/2/2009 8:35:18 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Not everything is meant to be taken literally.


So who gets to decide what is to be taken literally and what is taken figuratively? Was Jesus real? We have no evidence for him and we know magic isn't real, so the logical conclusion is he was just a mythical character. Garden of Eden was literal or figurative? Obviously the first humans weren't in the Garden of Eden, so that seems pretty stupid to accept, but many do. Great flood? Obviously we know that didn't happen, cause we have science backing that up. How about the Tower of Babel? Obviously we know that is bull.

So, if we start taking parts of the book as "fact" and others as fiction, how do we know what is credible? We just cherry pick what we like and say the rest is not to be taken literal? This is the work of apologists, they love this argument cause it lets their fairy tale survive in this world of enlightenment. Let it go, it has no more credibility than The Cat in the Hat. The day someone provides legitimate evidence for something supernatural is the day they will have a leg to stand on, but since that will never happen, let it go.


RE: Awesome Discovery
By hiscross on 10/2/2009 9:28:39 PM , Rating: 1
Actually the Bible broken down in the following categories ->

A. Historical narrative (55% OT, 66% NT)

Matt: Written with the Jews in mind; starts with a genealogy, presents Jesus as King
Mark: Written with the Romans in mind; presents Jesus as Servant
Luke: Written with the Greeks in mind; presents Jesus as perfect Man
John: The gospel of belief unto eternal life; presents Jesus as Son of God
Acts: The early church in transition
Much of the Old Testament
B. Wisdom literature

Job
Proverbs
Ecclesiastes
C. Poetic literature

Psalms
Song of Solomon
D. Epistles

Written to:
Individual people: Titus, Timothy
Specific churches: Ephesus, Philippi, Corinth
Regions: Galatians
Groups of people: Hebrews, Romans
Generally for the purpose of:
Solving a problems or...
Instructing in proper conduct for Christians and Christian workers.
E. Prophecy

Major & minor prophets
Book of Revelation

So you see, it has every type of factual writings. Now I realize many won't agree or worst yet believe, but that is something one has to decide. Your very life depends on it. For me, I accept the Bible as completely true because I have not found fault in it, nor have I found fault displayed by those whom don't believe.


RE: Awesome Discovery
By ImSpartacus on 10/4/09, Rating: 0
RE: Awesome Discovery
By hiscross on 10/5/2009 9:15:44 PM , Rating: 2
Not all of the prophecies written in the Bible have been full filled. For example the Tribulation has yet to happen. However, all of prophecies that have been full filled, around 60%, have all been true. Now I don't expect an non-believer to believer what I just wrote, because, well you are non-believer. But me and my family we believe.


RE: Awesome Discovery
By Dorkyman on 10/6/2009 12:25:49 PM , Rating: 2
Oh for heaven's sake. The bible was written to convey essential truths to the uneducated masses of that era. It makes no difference that it's not "literally" true. The ark didn't hold breeding pairs of the millions of species of animal and insect. The ark story was instead meant to convey the idea that the good get rewarded (eventually) while the evil get punished. Simple as that.

A sheepherder in 100AD didn't know about planets in elliptical orbits. If you're telling a story to him you use concepts he's familiar with.


RE: Awesome Discovery
By lco45 on 10/6/2009 12:16:37 AM , Rating: 2
I have found fault with it.
Were Kangaroos on the ark?
How did they get to Australia?
Why did they die out everywhere else, leaving no bones?

Then do the same for the 8,800 species unique to Hawaii, the 100,000 or so other unique Australian species, the penguins in Antarctica etc etc.

If Noah and his family were the only human survivors, when did they become Chinese? Ethiopian? Indian? Inuit? Mayan? Aboriginal? Jews and gentiles?

"Every living thing that moved on the earth perished—birds, livestock, wild animals, all the creatures that swarm over the earth, and all mankind." Gen 7:21

These are the words of a tribal elder, they are not the words of an all-knowing diety.

Sorry to burst your bubble, religion is very comforting and it's good to feel certainty in life, but I'm afraid you are deluding yourself.

Logic is over-rated as a means of persuasion, so I won't be surprised if there isn't a flood of people recanting religion and freeing up their Sundays...

Luke


RE: Awesome Discovery
By Octoberblue on 10/5/2009 5:19:56 PM , Rating: 2
I think the allegation of cherry-picking coming from a pure naturalist is laughable. Atheism (or Agnosticism) requires much more strenuous apologetics than Christianity. Once again, Jesus was on the money with his assessment, "You strain out a gnat... and swallow a Camel!"


RE: Awesome Discovery
By jahwarrior on 10/5/2009 6:24:29 PM , Rating: 2
There is plenty of evidence. A) Supporting the bibles historical accuracy, B.) Supporting the life, death and resurrection of Jesus, C) Supporting the flood (the vast majority of fossils are buried sediments that suggest a flood) D) The bible has never been proven historically inaccurate and all archeological evidence that has been found to date supports the bibles account of events. But it doesn’t matter what evidence I give you, because the light has shined in the darkness and everyone who lives in darkness hates the light…

You can have your so called “enlightenment” and your monkey leg bones…….I’ll throw my lot in with Jesus and the Bible, thank you very much.

But in case you change your mind: John 3:16


RE: Awesome Discovery
By althaz on 10/6/2009 3:52:23 AM , Rating: 2
You may want to get your facts straight before saying there is no evidence for the existence of Jesus.

Not saying that I believe in God or that Jesus was his son but Jesus was a real-life person born about 4ish BC and executed by the Roman government in I think 34 AD. There is plenty of documented evidence of his life and especially his death. It doesn't necessarily follow that he is the literal son of an all-powerful god and a virgin, that is a matter of belief and faith. However Jesus was a factual person.

Also, there may well have been a "great flood", though it is doubtful it was of truly global proportions and I'm certain no man named Noah ever rode it out in a boat filled with two of each and every animal. Considering that so many ancient cultures have a legend about such a thing and with several scientific theories to support it, I tend to think there was indeed a great flood.

Some parts of the bible are fact, or at the very least closely based upon such. The Old Testament (or the Jewish Scriptures) is primarily stories but some of that also, is fact. The majority is not taken literally by the vast majority of those who study it. The people who do take everything in it literally are obviously morons and those people need to be educated.

The New Testament (the Christian Scriptures) is mostly based closely on real events, though I personally don't doubt a lot of exaggerations and rumours were incorporated into the text (eg: the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ seems a little absurd to me).

All in all, although I don't support any religion, despite numerous historical wrongdoings of the church, I am overall quite thankful for Christianity and the effect it has had on the Western World. It's basic message of "Be Nice" has been ingrained into the culture of the world we live in and without it I doubt we'd live in as tolerant a society as we do now. Of course, that doesn't even come close to excusing the intolerance of the people who use Christianity as an excuse for such - and don't kid yourselves just because you don't like the church (and I don't blame anybody there). Christianity has never been the cause of bigotry, only the excuse that is used to justify it.


RE: Awesome Discovery
By stromgald30 on 10/5/2009 1:49:28 PM , Rating: 2
There's a part of the bible that mentions the four corners of the Earth. It was not meant to be taken literally, but it was for hundreds of years. Ask Aristotle.

The same is true about the "days" in which God supposedly created the Earth and Man. It can be taken literally, but Christianity and many of the dominant religions today are vague enough that they are not completely incompatible with evolution. Not everything is to be taken literally, especially considering the education of the people during the time which the scripture is written.


RE: Awesome Discovery
By lco45 on 10/5/2009 10:41:17 PM , Rating: 2
Buddha also told his followers that he wasn't a god and not to worship him or build idols in his image, yet people pray to him and Asia is full of poverty-stricken villages with shiny gold statues of Buddha.
People have a one track mind, and they believe want they want, even if their belief is directly contradicted by the entity in which they believe...

Luke


RE: Awesome Discovery
By lco45 on 10/5/2009 11:09:13 PM , Rating: 2
Are you serious?
My parents firmly believe that the world is 6,000 years old.
To maintain this belief they have to ignore hundreds of years of research in:
- Paleontology
- Geology
- Oceanography
- Cosmology
- Biology

They believe that all humankind is descended from Noah's family (including pygmies, Australian aborigines, Chinese etc.).
They believe that the tens of thousands of unique Australian animals all had their place in the ark, and migrated to Australia (dying out without a trace everywhere else.

That's not backwards? It's the equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and singing "Mary had a little lamb"...

Luke


RE: Awesome Discovery
By iFX on 10/2/2009 12:25:13 PM , Rating: 2
You're an idiot. One of the reasons many people left Europe was to get away from the religious nut crackers that ran your governments. America has never had a religious leader command armies, but the Pope once commanded armies and governments, including Kings. Over in Jolly Old England the government there was cutting off the head of anyone that didn't belong to their church, a similar practice was happening in the Holy Roman Empire (Germany).

Read your own history you taffard. There are many, many more religious loons in Europe than in North America. Hell, France is on its way to become a Muslim Republic.

ESAD.


RE: Awesome Discovery
By Stacey Melissa on 10/2/2009 12:54:25 PM , Rating: 4
The Pilgrims wanted to enforce their own brand of religious dogmatism on everyone, but they weren't allowed to force their particular brand on people in Europe. So they came here to do it instead. Luckily for us, though, by the time our Constitution was written, our leaders were fans of keeping church and state separate.

I'm not sure why you think the Europe of 400 years ago is the same as the Europe of today, though. France and the rest of Europe do have their problems with integrating Muslim immigrants, but aside from their occasional attraction to absurd postmodernist views on religion, (or the rare opposite reaction such as banning headscarves in France) they've been doing pretty well for themselves on the secular culture front as of late. Percentage-wise, Europe is currently far more non-religious than the US.


RE: Awesome Discovery
By Seemonkeyscanfly on 10/2/2009 3:54:16 PM , Rating: 1
Percentage-wise, Europe is currently far more non-religious than the US.

Sad thing is you think that is good. The USA is falling fast and hard away from its strong religious beliefs. Which also mean we are falling fast and hard away from our morals and ethics. The areas (Towns) that have fallen the furthers from religious ways have increased the most in un-ethical practices and crime. If for no other reason you should enjoy the shelter from crime that religion creates by by creating a fear from religious punishment in an after life. Otherwise, it's like playing a game with no rules, no referees, no judges, no punishment... why should I be nice when I can take it all till the day I die...


RE: Awesome Discovery
By MozeeToby on 10/2/2009 4:07:56 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
The USA is falling fast and hard away from its strong religious beliefs. Which also mean we are falling fast and hard away from our morals and ethics.

I reject your implication that morals and ethics are inseperable from religion. What's more, there is anthropological, historical, and biological evidence to support my rejection.

If the only reason you don't kill your neighbor, steal his possesions, and rape his wife is because you fear religous punishment, I am absolutely terrified of you.


RE: Awesome Discovery
By Seemonkeyscanfly on 10/2/2009 5:55:35 PM , Rating: 2
The historical data backs my statement.... All through history it does. Men without gods (good gods not evil based ones), have more bloody, cruel and in humane society. Biological evidence to support you rejection that falling religious belief leads to lower morals and ethics... that makes me laugh since none are biological. You reject it because you dislike the ideas religion represent not because you can prove them wrong. You are probably the person who thinks it's OK to cheat a little as long as you win and you meant well and really do not mean to hurt any one else.... Which anyone who thinks that why is full of it and does great harm (ethical and moral to the whole society) Damage comes in little steps not one big movement.


RE: Awesome Discovery
By MozeeToby on 10/2/2009 6:18:04 PM , Rating: 3
Ok, let's break this down one step at a time.

Even you have to admit, 'All history' is a bit of an exageration. What with the crusades, the Spanish Inquisition, 9/11, KKK, Armenian genocide, India/Pakistan conflicts, and Isreal/Palistine conflicts all being fueled by religion. To be clear, I am not saying that religion is the cause of those things, mearly that A) religion is taken advantage of by those who want power, and B) religious societies can be just as violent as non-religious ones.

Anthropologically, there are several isolated tribes throughout South America and Africa which have no concept of religion of any kind while at the same time a strong sense of community which instils strong ethics and morality. Likewise, there are plenty examples of tribes with very strong religions who you would undoubtably call amoral, but perhaps when you said 'religion' you really meant Christian Religion.

Thirdly, I say biologically because morality and ethics are hardwired into our brains and can be explained very well through evolution. You don't need to teach a child what 'fair' means (you might have to teach them to be fair, but that is different).

Finally, your baseless ad hominem attack is way off base. I'm a practicing Catholic who has never cheated on anything a day in my life. I love my wife and wouldn't dream of hurting her. I've never once used violence or force to get my way in anything.

It's just that my morals and ethics are rooted in my own personal upbringing and ongoing choices that I make. I'm not going to call something amoral simply because my priest told me so; that is, in my opinion a cop out. Like saying you're not really responsible for what you do, as long as it is in line with what an athority figure tells you.


RE: Awesome Discovery
By Seemonkeyscanfly on 10/6/2009 11:34:22 AM , Rating: 2
I'm not going to call something amoral simply because my priest told me so; that is, in my opinion a cop out. Like saying you're not really responsible for what you do, as long as it is in line with what an athority figure tells you.

If you believe you God you better never believe something is amoral or not because a priest or someone like that tells you. It's the teachings of God that will lead you to your own self understand of what is moral or not moral. This is why we are having a major moral problems in USA. As religion has been pushed more and more out of our everyday lives society has become less moral... little step like (and no I'm not say one for one switch, just example of steps in opposite directions): We cut Christmas shows in public school, instead we put on the pedestal Britney and others for showing off their shaved beaver in public whenever they can. Just 25 years ago this would have been not acceptable behavior let alone what would happen if we gone back 40 or 50 years.
And for those that want to say, well this is 2000's we have changed and progressed... Wrong, the Bible talks about these behaviors being bad because they were a major problem at that time too... So, as society we are going backwards to less civil times when street prostitutes, child sex, homo sexual acts, and many other issue were considered acceptable by society and we are trying to call it progress.... Truth is we have not change in 2000 plus years. Humans are still just the same dirty dogs as they were thousands of years ago. Just now we are turning around and going back deeper into the dirty (less morals).
The Bible teaches what is moral... All humans just have a hard time being moral. Without a good strong moral upbring one will not have a chance to live a "moral" life, because they will not know the difference.


RE: Awesome Discovery
By CommodoreVic20 on 10/2/2009 4:20:26 PM , Rating: 2
You got any evidence to back that up? Or are you just flapping loose lips?


RE: Awesome Discovery
By Stacey Melissa on 10/2/2009 4:35:50 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
The USA is falling fast and hard away from its strong religious beliefs. Which also mean we are falling fast and hard away from our morals and ethics. The areas (Towns) that have fallen the furthers from religious ways have increased the most in un-ethical practices and crime.

Actually, the opposite is true. Among developed nations, the more secular the society, the more ethical it is. And unlike you, I actually have studies to back myself up.

From a 2005 by Gregory Paul at Creighton University:

quote:
He found that the most religious democracies exhibited substantially higher degrees of social dysfunction than societies with larger percentages of atheists and agnostics. Of the nations studied, the U.S. — which has by far the largest percentage of people who take the Bible literally and express absolute belief in God (and the lowest percentage of atheists and agnostics) — also has by far the highest levels of homicide, abortion, teen pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases.

Source: http://www.commondreams.org/views05/1001-06.htm

If you read further in that article, you'll find that the positive correlation between religiosity and social ills also held regionally within the U.S.

There is also a book out by Phil Zuckerman, "Society without God: What the Least Religious Nations Can Tell Us About Contentment". I haven't yet read it, but I understand it covers the Paul study in detail, among others.

The low divorce rate among atheists, as compared to all popular religious peoples, is also well documented. Source: http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_dira.htm

The one thing about which religious people are more ethical than secular people is regarding their level of generosity. You guys are kicking our bums in that category, by a 4:1 ratio. OTOH, just about all the extra money gets wasted maintaining church structures and bureaucracies, rather than actual needy people. In the end, it's almost a wash. Kudos for your generosity, but please take that money and give it to a charity other than your church if you want it to do some real good.

If you're more into anecdotes than stats, let me know. I have a bookmark folder full of theists behaving very, very badly, all in some way related to their religious beliefs. But I have no similar folder for atheists, not because I ignore those, but simply because I've never come across any.

quote:
Otherwise, it's like playing a game with no rules, no referees, no judges, no punishment...

Really? God is the only thing stopping you from going on a killing spree? Really???? I know hundreds of atheists, including myself, none of whom have ever killed anyone. Are we just naturally better people than you?

quote:
why should I be nice when I can take it all till the day I die...

For one thing, even if you only count the people who would force you to abstain from killing, there is the police and perhaps some heroic neighbors. Beyond that, why would you want to kill people in the first place? What's the point? And wouldn't you worry about retribution from others whose relatives you killed? Yes, in all likelihood, you would, because you evolved that way. You see, humans are social animals. We can't survive without at least some minimal degree of cooperation. Enter: the natural selection advantage of ethics. No gods required. The "fittest" individuals are those who work best in a team.


RE: Awesome Discovery
By Seemonkeyscanfly on 10/6/2009 3:37:25 PM , Rating: 2
"Actually, the opposite is true. Among developed nations, the more secular the society, the more ethical it is. And unlike you, I actually have studies to back myself up.

From a 2005 by Gregory Paul at Creighton University:"

Ask you University for a full refund. You can not even address my statement correctly. I was talking about morals not ethics. Yes, they are very, very different subjects. If you do not know this and what the difference is you school fail you. It would also explain would you do not understand that among all developed nation morals are dropping like a rock through wet toilet paper.

And to answer your question about with no God would people just another person, because they had nothing to fear. You bet the answer is yes. Of course they are not going to kill their family and friends but they will protect from others they are unsure about... They may give that person a chance to leave (if they trespassed on to their property). If you do not believe this to be true then you have not studied humans very deeply.
P.S. People like Gregory Paul like to mislead others... by making foolish statements like the USA has far larger numbers..... As a person who study Economics and Finance one this I know is I can make any (I mean ANY stat) I come up with (do the research, gather number....) say anything I want them to say. Think about it, a national with large number of sexually transmitted diseases, throw a drag into a just about any country in the continent of Africa (lower half even better). The USA does not come close to the number of AIDS cases and such. However, it would be very easy to add just a few twists... Like adding country that follow religion believes verse all countries. Super easy... and since they did not teach the difference between Moral and Ethical, you probably do not even get it.

Lowest divorce rate amongst any group of people - Roman Catholic (this fact really pissed of a lot a groups, since most groups love to pick on Roman Catholics).

"or one thing, even if you only count the people who would force you to abstain from killing, there is the police and perhaps some heroic neighbors. Beyond that, why would you want to kill people in the first place? What's the point? And wouldn't you worry about retribution from others whose relatives you killed? Yes, in all likelihood, you would, because you evolved that way. You see, humans are social animals. We can't survive without at least some minimal degree of cooperation. Enter: the natural selection advantage of ethics. No gods required. The "fittest" individuals are those who work best in a team."

You still do not get it... The ground you are standing to give the bases of your stand is built on the fear of God judgement. With out it we would be no different then say a pack of wolf (except that we would talk and use tools). Man is not naturally good.


RE: Awesome Discovery
By ChickenMcTest on 10/8/2009 2:29:09 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Ask you University for a full refund. You can not even address my statement correctly. I was talking about morals not ethics.

You specifically said both morals and ethics! Allow me to quote you:
quote:
Which also mean we are falling fast and hard away from our morals and ethics.


Morals usually define personal character. Ethics usually are standards of behavior expected by society.

This is why a Lawyer can defend a client he knows is guilty of murder. The lawyer's ethical code demands he defend his client, even if his personal morals demand the client should be punished.

Ethics and morals are linked because morals are learned from other people.

quote:
The ground you are standing to give the bases of your stand is built on the fear of God judgement. With out it we would be no different then say a pack of wolf


A pack of wolves is actually a great example. A wolf pack lives in relative harmony. Wolf packs do not randomly maul and kill each other.

Wolf Packs have developed a code of ethics which requires each wolf to have morals. These morals are learned, unless you believe god brought the 10 commandments to wolves.


RE: Awesome Discovery
By Reclaimer77 on 10/8/2009 4:53:49 PM , Rating: 2
Animals can't have "morals". You are applying a completely human concept of the psyche to animals.

Wolfs are governed by instinct, not morals or ethics.


RE: Awesome Discovery
By ChickenMcTest on 10/9/2009 10:28:27 AM , Rating: 2
Morals are a set of rules of conduct which determine right and wrong.

Animals are capable of learning right from wrong.

Animals can have morals.


RE: Awesome Discovery
By Reclaimer77 on 10/9/2009 1:47:54 PM , Rating: 2
Wrong idiot. Animals are not capable of determining the moral implication of something, are you retarded ? A dog can be trained to attack a human just as easily as it can be trained that there are SEVERE penalties for harming a human. Morals do NOT factor into the equation.

So sharks think it's "right" to bite humans while Dolphins think it's "wrong" to harm us ? Do you realize how fu$%$@* retarded what you just said is ?


RE: Awesome Discovery
By William Gaatjes on 10/9/2009 2:09:35 PM , Rating: 2
Although you choose strange words, you are right. A crocodile will normally eat everything that comes to pas ,cute or not. But when mama crocodile has offspring, everything that is little is being seen as a "child" and protected and taken care off by the crocodile with overactive mother instincts. However, the little crocodiles do notice that a chick from a bird may be a cousin but a tasty cousin nevertheless. Our social human behaviour is nothing more then enhanced instincts. You have no idea how much times the fight or flight response controls our daily actions during social activities while we assume to be in "control".


RE: Awesome Discovery
By Reclaimer77 on 10/10/2009 10:43:13 AM , Rating: 2
You know I'm not a religious person, but I don't understand people who constantly attempt to make us seem one step above monkeys. We clearly have far more than "enhanced instincts" like you claim.

We have instincts, sure. That doesn't mean we don't also have higher reasoning or the ability to fight those instincts. We are self aware. We are aware of the implications of our thoughts and actions. Animals are NOT.

Animals do not have morals. Anyone who says they do is nothing more than the words of someone attempting to humanize a creature.


RE: Awesome Discovery
By William Gaatjes on 10/10/2009 11:11:14 AM , Rating: 2
Of course we do have more then just enhanced instincts. We can hold multiple fragment's of memory and recombine them as we see fit. This is not a human only feature by the way but we do posses the most enhanced version. Even tool making is not a human specific feature.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/04/04...

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/08/08...

If you would take for example someone who lives entirely inside their own imagination, in their own mind that is. This is one extreme way.

Now if you take an creature that can only make decisions based on it's instincts that is the other extreme. We humans have been granted the gift to have both at the same time. I assume it is evolution in it's seemingly chaotic form, by the way. I am just saying that being altruistic is not a human specific feature. It is present in most but not all offspring fostering species in the animal kingdom. Usually it is the female that does this but males do show it too with offspring again with certain species. Some flukes of nature exhibit this feature all the time. But usually they get extinct.

We live partially inside our own inner imaginary world (which is usually a reflection of the real world but has some magical features like for example playing time forth and back as you see fit. Or shutting down gravity in your imagination to deduce what happens) and partially in the real world.
Look at it the other way. Without having those enhanced instincts we would have destroyed and extincted our selfs long ago. It is all about balance.

http://thesop.org/training/2007/02/26/reactivity-a...

You may think you are able to fight those instincts. You don't fight them, you accept them and then lower the priority of those instincts temporarily. Because when you loose your cool, it's your emotions that take over. And instincts are harder to control when you are emotional.
This of course depends on the specific instinct and the specific emotion. Some amplify eachother, others are each others opposites. The brain is all about priority according to new research.


RE: Awesome Discovery
By William Gaatjes on 10/10/2009 11:14:55 AM , Rating: 2
Forgot the movie about the crow :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-qgI406J0qs


RE: Awesome Discovery
By William Gaatjes on 10/10/2009 11:33:51 AM , Rating: 2
RE: Awesome Discovery
By omnicronx on 10/2/2009 2:16:22 PM , Rating: 5
I really don't see the correlation. Around 2-3 years ago a study was performed which showed that around 81% of American adults identify themselves with a religion. In 2005 a similar study was conducted in Europe which showed that on Average, a mere 52% of Europeans identified themselves with a religion. While your statement holds true, it has absolutely no baring on the religious views of today. While I don't agree with the OP's statements, he is correct about the US being far more religious than Europe,although it varies country to country, that being said the same can be said in the US state to state. Southern states average as high as 86%.

In otherwords, I think you are a bit too quick to call him out, as you are very much so wrong. North American's (including Canada) are far more religious these days than Europeans.


RE: Awesome Discovery
By B3an on 10/2/2009 2:33:22 PM , Rating: 2
Thank you omnicronx. Thats exactly was i was talking about.


RE: Awesome Discovery
By B3an on 10/2/2009 2:27:34 PM , Rating: 1
No, you're an idiot as you couldn't even understand the obvious.

A lot of what you said is not accurate. That isn't the point though, the point is all this happened before america even existed. It's a fact that america has a higher percentage of religious nuts in this day and age. Thats what i was clearly saying. You yanks dont seem to realise that europe has moved on from how it was hundreds of years ago. America hasn't really gone anywhere in this area though.

As for France, they have a far lower percentage of religious people than america. Look this up if you want proof.
Even your last president was a religious nut. In western europe you dont get presidents/prime ministers saying "god bless -insert country-" and "god this, god that" in their speeches.


RE: Awesome Discovery
By B3an on 10/2/2009 2:32:00 PM , Rating: 2
Being an american site this^ will also get rated down, no matter how much truth it holds. The amount of religious nut comments on this page also backs this up.

The rest of world knows it to be true - theres far more religious nuts in america. Even some of your states are going backwards and bringing bible study back to schools.


RE: Awesome Discovery
By chrnochime on 10/2/2009 9:33:42 PM , Rating: 2
Please stay over there and heavily promote anti-Christian practices like gay/lesbian and demon worshipping. I mean that should be right up your alley right?

LOL


RE: Awesome Discovery
By callmeroy on 10/5/2009 12:55:51 PM , Rating: 1
LOL.....I'm trying to teach myself to turn religious-like debates into entertainment because trying to convince someone to change their believes is an exercise in futility....but boy some of the hyprocrisy is laughable as long as you don't take yourself too seriously and have a sense of humor....for instance its fascinating how nonbelievers are "ALWAYS" the smart,sane folks...and anyone showing or confessing even the slightest belief in something greater than us here on this planet are insane, dumb, uneducated , naive fools.....

I think its even more interesting that with the above in mind the non-believers are more likely throw insults firsts....

Amazing the kind of logic some people have....


RE: Awesome Discovery
By Ammohunt on 10/2/2009 3:11:25 PM , Rating: 2
I understand what you are saying Communists are Atheists and Europeans do not believe in anything greater then themselves this is a known fact.


RE: Awesome Discovery
By BeastieBoy on 10/3/2009 1:57:32 PM , Rating: 3
Perhaps there really is nothing greater than ones self.


RE: Awesome Discovery
By liberateandthink on 10/2/2009 3:52:28 PM , Rating: 4
The people that left Europe, England anyway, did so not to get away from religion, but to be able to practice their own form of Christianity. The early settlers were puritans who literally wanted to "purify" the ungodly practices from the church of England. America had their own religious ... erm ... problems. Like the Salem Which trials or Maryland being established as a Catholic colony cause the protestant colonies were worried about taking Catholics in. Every religion has their nut jobs. :)


RE: Awesome Discovery
By knutjb on 10/3/2009 2:04:51 PM , Rating: 2
People left Europe to get away from religious persecution and the imposed religion of the state. What makes the US unique is that [ANY] religion, so long as its stated purpose is NOT to make all others subservient, is free to practice. We have prosecuted those who have done so, though many have gotten away with it.

Does that make the US worse than any other country? Those that say so should go do some homework. In the UK you'll get in more trouble leaving your dog alone than your child. I lived there I saw on the news and had friends who experienced it.

The current problem in the US is the unusual focus on Christianity and the small fringe with in it, something ALL religions share, and painting ALL Christians as such, usually by the ominously named "Progressive" movement. Go look up all the ACLU law suits and how many are for Christians vs against, then look how many are against ANY other religion? The answer should alarm anyone within the broad political center.

The danger in stereotyping is that one ends up with a wholly inaccurate picture. Stereotyping is easy to do and I have read a lot of it in this thread.

The events you identified are excellent examples where a small number of zealots veered off the path violating the bible they professed to follow. This occurs when sensible people fail to stand up to stop it. Standing up is, socially, extraordinarily hard for the vast majority.

Does that make religion bad? No, because so many of you have used false analogies and or moral relativism to justify your points. Most people don't know that Newton was a very religious man who struggled to reconcile his observations with the interpretations of society, to include the church. The reconciliation of science and religion can be done.

To those atheist you don't have any example of any society that had absolutely NO religious morale guidance. So how can you make your claims that if left on their own a non religious society would be better without any example? Even the Russian revolution that tried to eliminate all religion failed to do so and ALL communist experiments killed more of their own population than the religious based governments for violating their respective doctrines.

In the bible god did wipe the slate clean a few times.

Back to the story, it's a great discovery.

Did god create us? That is for you to reconcile with yourself and not impose on me.


RE: Awesome Discovery
By Reclaimer77 on 10/3/09, Rating: -1
RE: Awesome Discovery
By knutjb on 10/3/2009 6:27:29 PM , Rating: 3
You're excused.

YES there are more pressing issues than the President going to Denmark in a vain attempt to get the Olympics for his home town.

You missed my point as it relates to the threads above tackling the the religious vs evolutionist argument. The reference to the broad political based was to separate the vast majority of Americans from fringe groups on both ends.

When the so-called mainstream media looks at left wing activities they focus on the least objectionable persons in the crowd to represent it as a whole and down play any linked violence. When they look at something on the right the find the most objectionable individuals to paint the whole crowd as such and portray any violence without context to make those whose views they disagree with as wackos to diminish their credibility. E.G. MSNBC painted a protest as a group of crazies by using a man carrying a firearm, an AR-15, near an event where the President was speaking as a bunch of gun toting white right wing bigots and showed a carefully edited tape omitting the fact that the man was in fact a black man who was part of a fringe group NOT associated with the protesters.

This behavior also shows itself in the Global Warming tirade. The BBC America had a story the other day telling a woeful story of farmers in Iraq a the severe water shortage which the reporter then blamed on Global warming. What the reporter left out was a small detail that removed much credibility from his story. He failed to report that the two rivers in question had greatly reduced flow because Turkey and Syria have dammed up the rivers and are preventing the flow of water into Iraq. To report this fairly would have removed nearly all credibility from his Global Warming argument.

There are too many problems to cover in such a short space but keep your eye on the one under discussion. I didn't expect many to like what I said because it is such a polarized subject. I DO feel the need to point out weak arguments as I see them. One should ALWAYS step back look at ALL the information and re-evaluate their views to remain objective. It's far too easy to be trapped in a subjective argument. Unless you want to follow others blindly through life.

I watch PBS, BBC, Fox News and Fox Business News, ABC, NBC, and CBS too when I have the time. I listen to NPR and Rush Limbaugh on the radio to gather differing points of view. I find business related programs who avoid polarizing views and discuss the known information to be the most accurate. They focus on the bottom line not the polarizing ideologies.


RE: Awesome Discovery
By Griswold on 10/3/2009 8:43:27 AM , Rating: 1
Hey asshat, we're talking TODAY not history. Funny enough, in your idiocy, you prove his point. Yes, europe used to be the darkest heart of religious bigotry in medieval times.

Not so today - things changed. In the US, however, things seem to change from good to bad as far as religious bigotry goes.


RE: Awesome Discovery
By bighairycamel on 10/2/09, Rating: 0
RE: Awesome Discovery
By ThereisnoGOD on 10/2/2009 10:47:14 AM , Rating: 1
fuck u


RE: Awesome Discovery
By ThereisnoGOD on 10/2/2009 10:52:49 AM , Rating: 2
its just bones idk why ppl are getting so mad about it, why are ppl bring their beliefs in to the matter.


RE: Awesome Discovery
By bighairycamel on 10/2/2009 11:13:28 AM , Rating: 2
Heh, you haven't been to this site very long I take it. Any topic mentioning evolution or life in space will spark the debates you see.


RE: Awesome Discovery
By TerranMagistrate on 10/2/2009 11:29:38 AM , Rating: 1
Aww, he hurt your feelings? Don't worry, your faith is being tested.


RE: Awesome Discovery
By MrHanson on 10/2/09, Rating: -1
RE: Awesome Discovery
By knutjb on 10/3/2009 6:35:14 PM , Rating: 2
The retort of one who doesn't have an argument only irrational bias.


RE: Awesome Discovery
By acase on 10/2/2009 11:38:09 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
Quit stereotyping creationists, just because someone believes in a creator does not mean they were brainwashed by a priest into believing that.


Correct...in most cases it was their parents.


RE: Awesome Discovery
By zkln on 10/2/2009 2:30:18 PM , Rating: 2
Amen to that


RE: Awesome Discovery
By callmeroy on 10/5/2009 12:47:55 PM , Rating: 2
True enough...but everything learned in our lives starts from something.....believe and NONE believe alike are first learned from our parents...they "plant the seed" so to speak....we cultivate it....


RE: Awesome Discovery
By callmeroy on 10/5/2009 1:22:51 PM , Rating: 2
I forgot to add that since I couldn't ask for better parents - I think my learning started off right...


RE: Awesome Discovery
By BurnItDwn on 10/2/2009 11:47:17 AM , Rating: 3
In order to be a creationist that does not support evolution you would need to either abandon much logic or be ignorant.

Also, please note: Evolution has nothing to do with "life spontaneously generating from nothing." Evolution does not explain the origin of life. That is a different story, and there are several different theories out there. None have been tested. Discoveries are being made on a regular basis, so I think we'll have a better understanding in the future.


RE: Awesome Discovery
By MozeeToby on 10/2/2009 4:18:16 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
That is a different story, and there are several different theories out there. None have been tested.

Actually, many parts of those theories have been. Basically, take whatever you think the primordial conditions on Earth were like, heat it to simulate evaporation, arc electricity through it to simulate lightning.

What they ussually find is that it is amazingly easy for the precursors of life to form. Even the researchers were suprised by the abundance and variety of amino-acids and other organic compounds produced. Obviously, that doesn't prove that those precursors are capable of spontaneously forming life, but it is certainly supports the theories.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller%E2%80%93Urey_e...


RE: Awesome Discovery
By bighairycamel on 10/2/09, Rating: 0
RE: Awesome Discovery
By smurfnz28 on 10/2/2009 11:47:28 AM , Rating: 2
I can't stand snooty Euro attitudes (the guy is probably French). Quit being a douche, and dragging this thing off topic.

You can say all you want about fossil record this or that, but it CANNOT be refuted the evolution is going on right now. I simple fruit fly lab experiment proves this, dog breading proves this. Maybe there is not a perfect line of perfectly preserved fossils that shows our entire line, but hey that is science. It is a puzzle that you put together with the data that you have. Maybe it is not 100%, but what is? In any case there is a VERY compelling argument.


RE: Awesome Discovery
By ClownPuncher on 10/2/2009 12:10:59 PM , Rating: 4
Dog bread sounds nasty. I prefer a nice black rye.


RE: Awesome Discovery
By Tim Young on 10/3/2009 8:04:42 AM , Rating: 2
French? I'm American! Why do you hate the French so much? What have they ever done to you? Their Is Good And Bad In Everyone. The Sooner you learn that. The Better Off You Will Be.


RE: Awesome Discovery
By William Gaatjes on 10/2/2009 1:29:26 PM , Rating: 1
Chaos equals life and equilibrium equals emptiness.

Carbon has some magical properties to seed life.

I have a puzzle for you...

A fullerene is composed of 60 carbon atoms.
The right fullerene is composed of hexagons.

Now if you can just cook up where the last 6 belongs....

It's getting 2012 soon, you know... :)


RE: Awesome Discovery
By William Gaatjes on 10/2/2009 3:32:19 PM , Rating: 2
Oh just a yoke :

A buckyball is made of twenty hexagons and twelve pentagons.

2012 :)


RE: Awesome Discovery
By iiell on 10/2/09, Rating: 0
RE: Awesome Discovery
By ClownPuncher on 10/2/2009 1:20:33 PM , Rating: 2
Why is there a duckbill platypus? Intelligence has not been quantified fully in animals, dolphins and whales are being found to be very smart.

Is your questions "why don't dolphins drive a convertible then?". Because they probably evolved in a different direction.


RE: Awesome Discovery
By iiell on 10/2/2009 1:29:22 PM , Rating: 1
Very Smart relative to "other animals" - yet far behind human intelligence.


RE: Awesome Discovery
By ClownPuncher on 10/2/2009 2:45:18 PM , Rating: 1
Prove it.


RE: Awesome Discovery
By iiell on 10/2/09, Rating: -1
RE: Awesome Discovery
By Reclaimer77 on 10/2/09, Rating: 0
RE: Awesome Discovery
By ClownPuncher on 10/2/2009 5:13:02 PM , Rating: 2
My liberal sensibilities? What a crock of shit that is. Please, articulate a point.


RE: Awesome Discovery
By Reclaimer77 on 10/3/2009 7:47:10 AM , Rating: 3
There are some people, you included, that seem to think man is just some fluke of evolution and that we can be compared to whales and dolphins.

I find this absurd. For one thing, man has one very important thing that animals don't. Our imagination. I'm not sure how we "evolved" into having one, but we have it and animals don't. We have the power to shape the planet. We have gone to the stars. We have goals and dreams and shape them into realities.

I am NOT a religious person. But I'm offended by silly comparisons to animals in an attempt to belittle how truly special and unique mankind is. You can go through live believing we are a few steps from dolphins if you like, and yes they may well be intelligent, but a dolphin can't imagine itself being anything more than a dolphin, doing any more than it does day after day.

Animals are governed by pure instinct and rudimentary reasoning. Frankly I don't care how we got here, but it's clear mankind has unlimited reasoning, creative potential, and a desire to learn about and change our environment to our suiting. This is LIGHT YEARS beyond animals.


RE: Awesome Discovery
By Reclaimer77 on 10/3/2009 7:57:53 PM , Rating: 3
I'm just curious but why is this downrated ? Unless someone is going to argue that animals are super intelligent and have powerful imaginations I'm not sure how this was inflamitory.

But ofcourse, ppl who downrate have already given up their right to speak on the topic. So they don't really count anyway.

If I said I was an atheist would that make a difference ? OMG we can't have someone be an athiest and NOT have a bitter hatefilled reaction to this stuff can we !?


RE: Awesome Discovery
By ClownPuncher on 10/6/2009 7:50:56 PM , Rating: 2
Not at all. You have misunderstood, perhaps. I do not think dolphins or whales are more intelligent than humans at all. My point was that without even fully understanding our own brains, how is intelligence quantified? You say that animals do not have imaginations, where is the scientific proof to back that statement up? Asking that question does not mean I think you're wrong, it is the nature of science to ask why. Until there is proof that your beliefs are fact, how can we rule out all other possibilities? That is not scientific at all.

In no way am I belittling mankind by asking questions, that sounds more like an issue you need to overcome in your personal life.


RE: Awesome Discovery
By OldE5 on 10/2/2009 1:24:31 PM , Rating: 2
Actually intelligent creatures have evolved. Homo Neanderthal migrated out of Africa earlier than Homo sapiens. Neanderthal built houses, hunted with spears, made tools, buried their dead with personal artifacts, and appeared to have taken care of their sic and elderly. Yet, DNA evidence shows that Homo sapiens and Neanderthal are no closely related.

OldE5


RE: Awesome Discovery
By iiell on 10/2/2009 1:43:16 PM , Rating: 3
"Edward Rubin of the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory in Berkeley, California states that recent genome testing of Neanderthals suggests human and Neanderthal DNA are some 99.5% to nearly 99.9% identical."


RE: Awesome Discovery
By OldE5 on 10/2/2009 2:59:20 PM , Rating: 3
This may be true, but it is also true that a chimpanzee differs from a modern human by only 6% of its genetic code. We can not procreate with a chimpanzee and our hands and feet look much different.

So, this 1 to 5 percent difference between us and a Neanderthal is huge.

OldE5


RE: Awesome Discovery
By iiell on 10/2/2009 3:46:58 PM , Rating: 1
"Yet, DNA evidence shows that Homo sapiens and Neanderthal are no closely related." Isn't this your original statement? And it is a .01% to .05% difference according to Edward Rubin.


RE: Awesome Discovery
By iiell on 10/2/2009 4:04:38 PM , Rating: 2
My bad... I meant a .1% to .5% difference.


RE: Awesome Discovery
By OldE5 on 10/2/2009 4:02:31 PM , Rating: 2
Wouldn’t you say that Humans and Chimpanzees are not closely related? We can not procreate with a chimpanzee.

It is doubted that humans and Neanderthal could procreate together. Not closely enough to create offspring.

OldE5


RE: Awesome Discovery
By iiell on 10/2/2009 4:29:42 PM , Rating: 1
Depends who you ask...but I wouldn't say we appear closely related, though I would say that we are closely related when looking only at the genetic makeup of each species.

Honestly though, I am no expert and have very limited knowlege on Neanderthal. But what little I do know, I know there are many similarities to that of modern humans. But then, I could counter that by saying there are many similarities between all mammals...especially when looking only at the genetic makeup.


RE: Awesome Discovery
By Gzus666 on 10/2/2009 8:43:25 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
But then, I could counter that by saying there are many similarities between all mammals...especially when looking only at the genetic makeup.


That is because we share a similar ancestor if you go back far enough. Land mammals came from fish. Humans have direct ancestry to sharks. I recommend reading Your Inner Fish, fantastic little book about evolution by Neil Shubin.


RE: Awesome Discovery
By Reclaimer77 on 10/3/2009 7:54:50 AM , Rating: 1
You know what Old, stop now. You got caught spewing some crap, lying, and now you keep trying to defend what you said.

Less than a 1% DNA difference is pretty damn "closely" related in anyone's book.


RE: Awesome Discovery
By Jaybus on 10/19/2009 5:14:24 PM , Rating: 2
Not in my book. There are some 3 billion base pairs in human DNA, so a 1% difference equates to 30 million base pair differences. That's a lot of differences, and I would say the two animals aren't really all that close.


RE: Awesome Discovery
By HrilL on 10/2/2009 4:35:41 PM , Rating: 4
It seems like your background of anthropology is lacking to a great deal.

There were other animals close to humans that were also what you would call intelligent. Neanderthals were one such group. It is widely believed that this animal was killed off my humans because it was their direct competition. These other animals have long since been dead and that is why in this modern age we are the only intelligent life. Also keep in mind that animals evolve my mutations it is possible that other animals mutated to be smarter but lacked some of the basic skills that were needed to survive in the environment that they were currently living in. They died and thus those traits were not passed on from one generation to the next. Evolution has many factors in it and it takes millions of years for a spices to evolve from one form to the next. If humans were not able to move freely around the plant it is likely that over time each race would no longer be able to reproduce with some of the others. Thus creating their own species.


RE: Awesome Discovery
By iiell on 10/2/09, Rating: 0
RE: Awesome Discovery
By maximus pistoficus on 10/3/2009 6:23:01 AM , Rating: 2
Very good question regarding evolution but it predisposes that human intelligence is a meaningful way to define evolution. Looking at the state of things (including the tone and substance of this article's comment thread), human intelligence may not be the end all of God's design for evolution. Look at what human's have done to the planet and to one another through our history. Granted, we have done many great things related to art, literature, certain areas of science, such as medicine, civil engineering, etc., but we have done many harmful things and are on the brink of destroying not just human life but probably the bulk of most species.

Our intelligence though is quite capable of many great things including correcting for our mistakes and that is where God truly lies. Whether God created us or we created God is a moot point, even to God. What matters is how we treat one another and what we do with the intelligence he has given us. We might should look to other species as examples of what our intelligence should be.


RE: Awesome Discovery
By Lightnix on 10/3/2009 11:01:38 AM , Rating: 2
Arguably we're not that much more intelligent than a lot of other animals, it's just we're the only ones that have a good mix of communicative skills and general intelligence. If only we could breed hyper-intelligent parrots.


RE: Awesome Discovery
By jahwarrior on 10/2/09, Rating: -1
RE: Awesome Discovery
By KLO on 10/2/09, Rating: 0
RE: Awesome Discovery
By mikeholloway on 10/2/2009 3:32:08 PM , Rating: 2
One can see how carefully researched and reasoned your conclusions are. Since you have no knowledge at all of evolutionary biology, and its effect on biotech and agriculture, and maybe don't even know what those words are, its safe to assume that you haven't bothered looking into it because you've already convinced yourself of the outcome.

Reminds me of the Doonesbury strip where the doctor asks the patient with TB if he believes the drug resistant strain evolved or not. If he doesn't then the doctor won't bother with the new medicines developed from the study of the bugs evolution.


RE: Awesome Discovery
By ProEvo on 10/2/2009 3:37:55 PM , Rating: 1
Really?

1.What has the theory of evolution done for me lately?: Have you taken an aspirin before? How about a flu shot? The medical and pharmacutical field studies bio-evolution extensively to be able to create more effective drugs that can combat the constantly evolving organisms that may be fatal to us.
2.What effect will the theory of evolution have on my daily life?: I guess this depends primarily on how often you get sick.
3.Has the theory of evolution advanced our technology?: Unless you've been living under a rock, our medical research and technology has improved dramatically in the past 200yrs.
4.Has theory of evolution improved our society?: That would be an opinionated question.
5.Has the theory of evolution wasted precious research money? Please provide links as to what has actually been wasted by this research.
6.Has the theory of evolution provided any benefit to our country or world? See response to #3.

It appears that you have not read, or are not willing to read, any of the medical and/or science journals to understand what research is actually being done and what those results were. It is a time consuming process and as we discover new things about evolution and how it affects us, then we can incorporate that research into technology that benefits us all.

Your questions are purely ignorant and is a sign of person who is not well informed of these science fields and lends to ignorant questions/statements.


RE: Awesome Discovery
By jahwarrior on 10/2/2009 5:05:00 PM , Rating: 1
Neither aspirin nor any other medicine was created use the theory of macro evolution. Yes we understand that bacteria can become drug resistant, but that is simply due to the fact that some of population of bacteria will have a gene that protects it from the antibiotic by strengthen the cell wall, etc. And our antibiotics kill of the ones without the gene, thus leaving only the resistant bacteria to reproduce. And yes bacteria/viruses can exchange RNA/DNA but they still remain bacteria/virus and are not evolving into other organisms. This is simply a form of adaptation which all organisms can due through reproduction. It is not macro evolution. Rearranging of genes through reproduction is not macro evolution. No matter how many times a species reproduces it will still remain the same species. Duh

Mutations cannot drive evolution as 99.9% of them are harmful and will destroy the organism, ever heard of genetic burden.

See the attached it sums up many of the problems/holes in the theory of macro evolution nuff said: http://www.evanwiggs.com/articles/reasons.html#mic...


RE: Awesome Discovery
By HrilL on 10/2/2009 5:05:59 PM , Rating: 2
Seem like you're completely ignorant. There is this thing us more educated people like to call learning. Its what happens when you apply yourself in school.

Evolution isn't even a theory anymore it can be proven. Look at dogs for example they are nothing like they once were. How do you think a Jack Russel and a great Dane are both dogs but completely different? We as humans did this with selective breading over time. You take the smallest dogs and bread them, you then take the smallest ones again over many generations and you'll end up with a small dog. You do the same with with bigger dogs and you end up with big dogs.

The only reason selective breading works is because of mutations and mutations is what brings about evolution.

This video of the peppered moth is a very good example of evolution at it's finest. Watch it and become enlightened
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LyRA807djLc


RE: Awesome Discovery
By ClownPuncher on 10/2/2009 5:37:16 PM , Rating: 1
Sorry to nitpick, but it's "breed". You use "bread" to make a sammich.


RE: Awesome Discovery
By HrilL on 10/2/2009 7:05:23 PM , Rating: 2
Got to love when people can't deny what you said they go after any type of grammatical or spelling error the person made.

Not all of us are masters of the English language you know.


RE: Awesome Discovery
By ClownPuncher on 10/2/09, Rating: 0
RE: Awesome Discovery
By jahwarrior on 10/2/09, Rating: 0
RE: Awesome Discovery
By HrilL on 10/2/2009 7:02:18 PM , Rating: 2
Actually a variation in the genetic code is what a mutation is. Mutations don't have to be things like an extra limb or lungs on a fish. A mutation is just a change in the genetic code.

Also its something like every animal shares 90% of the same DNA as everything else. Why would this be the case if it were not for variations and splitting off from one species into another. Also look at monkeys from South America compared to Africa. One group can use it's tail as an extra arm to grab onto limbs and the other can't use its tail for such things. Yet both share a common ancestor and they can no longer reproduce with each other. Evolution is the way life changes from one form to another.

Our current way of life in a developed country will actually slow if not stop evolution from happening for us humans. We think everyone should be able to live no matter how sick or what defects these people have. They're not stopped from reproducing and thus creating more people with the same types of problems since they have a weak genetic code.

Evolution is about adapting to the environment that an animal lives and when that changes its what allows something to adapt to those changes.


RE: Awesome Discovery
By jahwarrior on 10/2/09, Rating: -1
RE: Awesome Discovery
By KLO on 10/2/2009 7:48:09 PM , Rating: 4
i don't disagree that they are moths and alway will be moths but not all mutations are bad. Some fish have mutated to be asexual in order to be able to pro-create without a mate. As well as some fish have the ability to change their sex as needed in order to mate with an available mate.

As I have followed you on your posts, i cannot stress the importance in your seeking medical attention for your preoccupation with dissent to others when you supposedly believe in religion and in a Lord.

If you believe in those things it goes without saying how badly of a follower you actually are as you are judgemental, shallow and a bad example for that which you say you believe.

Coming from a different perspective your preoccupation with attacking people for the sheer joy of attention instead of constructive participation shows your you have some kind of mental disorder besides just mental distress. Whatever your hang up is, has nothing to do with evolution but could possibly stem from your regret many years ago about how you spent money because you are so hung up on the dollar. I hope simply you are not in finacial distress and are aiming your unhappiness at the wrong people.


RE: Awesome Discovery
By Gzus666 on 10/2/2009 8:50:04 PM , Rating: 4
I love how you just throw baseless assertions at evolution and hope it will go away. Evolution happens, it is reproduced in a lab. What you define it as may be different than what the scientific community defines it as, but the actual definition is reproducible in a lab. Oddly enough, most people will ignore your definition over the scientific one, mainly because you're some guy and they are the greatest minds in the world.

Adapting to an environment shows that things react to said environment through mutations that can be beneficial. The beneficial mutations will continue cause the mutation helps them survive and there by breed, likely passing on the new genetic code. The spotted moth evolved that way because of the environment, just as speculated by Darwin and defined by the theory.

If you have a better explanation for why this happens that doesn't involve baseless speculation and a magic sky fairy, please produce it and accept your Nobel Prize, other wise, run along you nutjob.


RE: Awesome Discovery
By KLO on 10/2/2009 7:17:11 PM , Rating: 2
You are ignorant because you don't know how DNA mutates or have kept up with recent discoveries. Not because of where you went to school or what kind of grades you got, what house you live in or what you drive..the latter just makes you shallow!


RE: Awesome Discovery
By jahwarrior on 10/5/2009 6:53:16 PM , Rating: 2
Of course there are mutations that happen in the genetic code, what I am saying is that 99.9% of mutations are bad for the species and will result in loss of genetic information and death of the individual and possible extinction of the species. MUTATIONS ARE BAD! For every 1 positive mutation there are thousands of harmful ones. It’s like taking one step forward and a thousand steps backward, vast expanses of time even make the problem worse.

Modern geneticists have theorized that a single celled organism would need approximately 10^1600 positive mutations in the genetic code to change into a complex mammal like a horse. That number is positive mutations, so if less than 1 percent of mutations are positive the total number of mutations needed would be infinite! not to mention that any species experiencing that number of mutations would quickly die from genetic burden aka(build up of harmful mutations.)

Not to mention that the fact you would need 10^1600 mutations in say about 5 billion years (or 10^17 seconds) of supposed evolution which equates to 10^1600 mutations/ 10^17 seconds which needed less to say is trillions up trillions of mutations per second! That is impossible.


RE: Awesome Discovery
By William Gaatjes on 10/10/2009 6:22:10 AM , Rating: 2
You forgot 1 most important thing. You talk about vertical gene transfer while it is horizontal gene transfers that can create vast mutations without it being immediately hazardous for your health.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horizontal_gene_trans...

quote:
Horizontal gene transfer (HGT), also Lateral gene transfer (LGT), is any process in which an organism incorporates genetic material from another organism without being the offspring of that organism. By contrast, vertical transfer occurs when an organism receives genetic material from its ancestor, e.g. its parent or a species from which it evolved.


Through vertical gene transfer we loose genetic code. But with horizontal gene transfers we gain genetic code.
We are infected with thousands of different viruses species every day. There are hundreds of bacteria species living on us and inside us. We are constantly receiving horizontal gene transfers from those bacteria and viruses. Luckily however , we have a very powerful error detection and correction mechanism. Our immunesystem and the ability of our cells to self destruct when a fault in the genetic code is discovered and can not be corrected.

This is my personal opinion :
When this mechanism failes, you are not happy. You then have cancer. Toxics that cause cancer disturb our error correction detection and / or immunesystems.


RE: Awesome Discovery
By chrnochime on 10/2/2009 9:28:47 PM , Rating: 2
And I get a kick from reading comments like yours who grasp at every opportunity to bash religion, and when your own "beliefs" whatever that might be(scientology, new age whatever) is challenged, turn around and say "how dare you do this, doesn't your religion teach you anything"?

What a flamebait comment you have made. If you expect to just stand there and not get flamed, and yelp like a dog when you do, you're an idiot in the truest sense.


RE: Awesome Discovery
By thinkandbelieve on 10/4/2009 12:43:25 AM , Rating: 2
I would like to thank people from both camps who argued respectfully without cheap words or insults. It is very enriching to hear and weigh both arguments since it is not a matter of winning a fight, but rather sharing with others what we believe to be right even if it is disapproved by others.
Evolution cannot answer the first basic Question, which is how life began. Even the simplest forms of life have to be so complex and sophisticated to sustain, propagate and manipulate life successfully. The unwise can not create the wise, the lifeless can not create life and the random can never turn to the ultimate complex arrangement, that is totally illogical.

Studying DNA itself is amazing and a very infomative.for example the formation of Purines and Pyrimidines which eventually form nucleotides which in turn are the building blocks of DNA requires multiple nucleotide based catalysts. Amazing, DNA is telling us it takes life to make life.

It is interesting to see if evolution can explain such huge changes in the Genetic structure and the complex differences between aquatic and dry land life for example. The required changes can not be gradual or be step by step because simply each organ system depend so heavily on the other at both the macro and micro level, anatomical and physiological levels as well. You can not simply extract oxygen from water and several generation later take from air, that simple step require huge changes at every organ at every level to be achieved. Besides what make species mutate to venture into an environments it does not know anything about in the first place or even know how or what it takes to survive at that enviroment with so many fundamental changes as capturing nutrients and the huge changes in metabolic functions to nurture the organism, self defense against the unknown to survive in the new environment, balance system between the different mutants and non mutants to ensure ecosystem survival and so on.
The other question among many can our limited environmental chnges produces such huge changes and hundreds of thousands of very diferrent species so that the Flu virus and the T-Rex come from a common grandfather.

The notion “Science against religion” is absurd since they do not object. The evolution “theory” is so far so incomplete and still can be right or wrong, and even if it is right that does not dash religion either.


RE: Awesome Discovery
By William Gaatjes on 10/4/2009 5:31:45 AM , Rating: 2
I recently have seen some news items and documentaries that makes me think we have to redefine life. viruses themselves may not be seen as life but are most important to life. Without viruses or properly called bacteriophages , bacteria would not mutate that fast. And new randomly assembled dna chaines would not be spread that fast. Also when looking how resilient bacteria are...
Life use the preferred nature of atoms to form certain geometric shapes. If you want your answer to life, search why atoms of certain elements prefer these geometric shapes. These shapes arise of various preferred energy levels.

I think it is all about finding the equilibrium in chaos. When you manipulate this equilibrium the right way you can use devastating forces as seemingly "perpetual motion". This "perpetual motion" is the driving force behind life. However, we still then have to answer one thing, where does this playground we call universe come from. We had a lot of big bangs to replenish the universe in the virtual particle enviroment. The real question is, where do the big bangs comes from. Or what makes it happen. If you believe or not, there is much to learn.

disclaimer :
I myself am an atheist but if i have to call something god i would call the mechanism that makes big bangs and therefore universes happen god. But i am sure that god does not care about us. We are insignificant compared to all possible life in this universe. But we can grow as Sentient beings. Grow in knowledge and compassion.

Man made books to control people are nothing more to me then any book written in those times. Nice to read but anyone must really have no hope at all to believe such man-separating tales. Because that is what those man made tales do. Split people into camps in order that profits can be made through war, violence, fear, lost of hope and pain. Over innocent people causing psychological scars that prolong from generations to generations to come. Feeding that circle of ignorance and violence.


RE: Awesome Discovery
By thinkandbelieve on 10/4/2009 8:59:14 PM , Rating: 2
Equilibrium in a chaos????. The incredible harmony in the universe, ecosystem and even inside a unicellular organism is way beyond any equilibrium that can occur within any chaos. The mechanism that brought the universe or life has to be of utmost control, power and knowledge. We as humans think that we figured it out and yet when you study any science we still have a lot of a lot to learn and discover, and then we want to believe that all is a product of a chaos that found the way to build all this?
Your comment regarding God not caring about us is an incredibly valid question for people who said yes to the first question “Does God really exist” and try to find the answer to the second Question “Which God is a true one, Muslims say he is Allah, Christian say he is Jesus and Buddhist say neither”. The Christian God is the only God that did something out of the ordinary; he simply practiced what he preached. Is it that amazing or what, he became one of us and crucified by the same people for which he came to preach his message. There are so many points beyond the short discussions of our comments to show how much that God loves us and care about us, he did not stay up there far in heaven waiting for us to die to barbeque us like the concept of other religions that I have read
On the other hand when you look at all the misery in this world you will find that if we applied two simple rules from the Bible, do to others as you would like them to do to you and forgive your enemy and pray for others even if they hurt you, do you think that the World Wars have ever happened or would you have seen millions die of hunger every day while we continue our wasteful life


RE: Awesome Discovery
By William Gaatjes on 10/5/2009 3:29:47 PM , Rating: 3
Yet i admit that i do not possess all knowledge that there is too know, you do actually what i do know about "hopeless" people. You preach separation. Your words speak for themselves.

It was Jezus that sad not to believe in books or churches or temples. Jezus sad : Just accept that we are surrounded by god that everything and everyone is made of god. That a rock is no more different then you. That a goat is no more different then a snake or a scorpion. We are all made of the same "stuff" which Jezus happened to call and accept as god. That also became his death sentence. Giordano Bruno, who said that the earth and the sun are not unique was burned. Countless women and men with knowledge of herbs and other materials provided by nature where destroyed because they could do what the church could not do with it's religion : heal people. Even today people die because of this useless concept of reading a soap story as a book of knowledge. Look at how people are influenced today through modern ways of media. Although we are better of, the principle is the same. Accept it.

Science of man has made us come closer to god then religion ever did. For science and knowledge unites through understanding. And when you are willing to understand each other you are able to show compassion for each other.



RE: Awesome Discovery
By thinkandbelieve on 10/5/2009 9:51:44 PM , Rating: 2
I truly hope that you have the chance to read the book of Matthew chapters 5, 6 and seven. They will give you a crash course in how a Christian can be and let you know that God have put us way higher than any other creature. From what you said, I can see that you need to know or read about Christianity from unbiased source, I will be interested to know where did you get your statements about Jesus.
We do not view the Bible as a medical or healing book for the body diseases, though I am very religious I go to traditional medicine I live a very Scientific based way of life and I have always admired the way God have given us ability to investigate, know and apply .None of this contradict being a Christian The bible have commanded us to search knowledge unbiased see Book of Acts Ch 17 Verse11, John 5 :39 and Jeremiah 7:20 amoong others


RE: Awesome Discovery
By William Gaatjes on 10/6/2009 1:11:07 PM , Rating: 2
I can assure that my point of view is not only about the bible. My point of view is the same for the koran and the tanakh. Long ago there where many tribes in what now the middle east is. And each tribe had it's own religion. Some religion died out, other fused. New religions where born.

quote:
They will give you a crash course in how a Christian can be and let you know that God have put us way higher than any other creature.

This statement alone has been used many times do justify cruelty. You preach separation and war. Tell that to the Cathars that where slaughtered at Montségur. Read about the gnostics and Gilles Quispel. The separation of man and woman because christians and other religious people only see the difference between man and woman and not their similarity and the power to unite in spiritual way.

quote:
I will be interested to know where did you get your statements about Jesus.


You can search for the Naq Hammadi.
You can search for the dead sea scrolls.
You can read the book of the death. Both the egyptian and the tebetan version.

I advise to do a cross reference.

In all honesty, it is all a point of perspective. The christian church did unite people, but when many countries are conquered by an hostile invading country, those countries pick up typical cultural marks form the invader. It is not any different with religion. Any other religion. If you wish to believe in God, go right ahead.

God is after all the ultimate quantum uncertainty.
The more you prove god exist, the more you disprove god's existence. The more you disprove god, the more you prove god's existence.



RE: Awesome Discovery
By thinkandbelieve on 10/6/2009 9:59:12 PM , Rating: 2
If “blessed be the peace maker” and “Have love for those who are against you, and make prayer for those who are cruel to you” are a call for separation and war, what is your version of unity and love??. If you think that we should muffle and forget all of our differences rather than embrace it and respect it and discuss it, what is the use of this discussion.
When I talked about God putting us above all creatures, it meant all human above animals and plants
When you qoute Jesus you go to the Bible and not the book of death or naq hammadi but you quote the bible itself, this is the simplist basics of honest research
“these were more noble, for they gave serious attention to the word, searching in the holy Writings every day, to see if these things were so.”, Acts 17


RE: Awesome Discovery
By William Gaatjes on 10/7/2009 2:39:07 AM , Rating: 2
If i would study the bible, i want the original manuscripts and i want to learn aramaic. Then i would read what was written originally and not what has been chosen as words by a institution over 2000 years old. An institution formed by the people who saw that christianity has become more powerful then the roman empire. They then saw what influence religion can have on people. It gives people in doubt and desperation a reason to live. Something that should not be abused. All this occurred 2000 years ago. And it did before and before that As it did afterwards and it will happen again.

I am not going to celebrate my difference with other people. I rather celebrate what we have in common. Because that we are different is a good thing that is best seen when we work together. Because then we see that each of us have a natural gift that let's us shine when needed. Example : A mathematician, an physics expert, an electronic engineer, an mechanical engineer, an artist, an software writer. When working together they can create wonderful things.

We are part of life and not above it. When you accept that, life becomes a lot more loving and unifying. We do what we need to do to stay alive.


RE: Awesome Discovery
By thinkandbelieve on 10/7/2009 9:59:18 PM , Rating: 2
Very very strange. You do not want to read the bible because you do not know aramiac, or have the original manuscipt, so instead you quote Jesus from naq hammadi which is written in ancient Egyptian that you do not speak to begin with or historically proven to be distant from what Jesus said or done???.did you read the original maniscrpit of Darwin. Does someone live in China have to learn English to Read Evolution in its original maniscript to believe it ??.
Do you like people to quote you from Sci Fi channel just because they do not believe evolution?.
We have tremendous amount of maniscripts to testify for the Bible that we have today, why do not you go back to Codex Sinaiticus or Vaticanus, they were written 17 centuries ago.

If “blessed be the peace maker” and “Have love for those who are against you, and make prayer for those who are cruel to you” are a call for separation and war, what is your version of unity and love?. I did not get an answer
The words that you wrote have no message even though they may look nice to you. Smart people recognise their similarities and differences as well


RE: Awesome Discovery
By William Gaatjes on 10/9/2009 1:12:48 PM , Rating: 2
First of all, when reading my own posts i feel reading the posts of a non religious or religious fanatic. I apologize for coming on strong. I do not rule out anything. But for example, i once took 4 random bibles owned by different people and compared those bibles with the one i bought. What was the case, 5 different versions of a certain chapter. And i mean total different meanings. That is one of the many reasons why i write what i write.

But if you feel that you can only be the best version of yourself by reading the bible go right ahead. But always have an open mind and be ready to think about what you read.
When taking texts literally, you change your modern point of view to the point of view from a society that lived at least 2000 years ago, usually in fear.

I can only say one thing, The roman catholic church does not allow ordinary humans to read those manuscripts. I do understand that though.

quote:
If “blessed be the peace maker” and “Have love for those who are against you, and make prayer for those who are cruel to you” are a call for separation and war, what is your version of unity and love?. I did not get an answer The words that you wrote have no message even though they may look nice to you. Smart people recognise their similarities and differences as well


Those words are nice words , i am sure the cathars heard them to before they where slaughtered.
YOu can read about St. Augustine.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augustine_of_Hippo
But i am sure that you will write that he not took the words of the bible literally. Many people who did not agree with the church where murdered. That does not really comply with the words that you write. You see, (in your words) God gave us our free will. TO make choices as we see fit. If you truly mean what you write you might have to accept that you are just naturally a great guy. That no bible forced you to be a nice guy. It was what you wanted to be and that is how you have become.

To use a page from the bible, When Adam and Eve ate from that apple, they and all humanity received the gift of making choices as they wish, taking responsibility for there own actions. No longer bound by genetic programming, but receiving a genetic code that allowed us to re-use and re-order the information from our senses in a creative way. This gives us the ability to plan, to think before acting. To be creative. How sad it is, that the words you write are only used when they come in handy. Llok at the examples i gave you. In all honesty, once there was someone very smart and saw that when people have a common enemy those people are a caring family. While in normal life they would not bless each other or have love for each other, they accept each other as long s nobody comes to close. This simple human trait was understood and the people who where always fighting each other where given an common enemy. Now as in those days there was no radio or television. There where writing. But since most people can not read or write at those times the "word" had to be spread. This was pure noble intent. However, as always where good things happen, corruption will start too appear too and that is where the downfall started. This happens over and over again, every time a new religion is born.


RE: Awesome Discovery
By thinkandbelieve on 10/9/2009 9:27:09 PM , Rating: 2
I have read the Bible in more than ten translations in more than one language and I have not see any difference, please let me know what were the versions that you reading, reminding you again that you have to go to the original sources not something like naq hammadi. or other sources.
Anyone who believes in the Bible and does not follow or at least try to do so with his heart and soul is simply not a Christian.
We all fall in the same mistake of judging a creed or even political ideology by what some people did and not by the true heart of that ideology itself. If you want to quote someone to judge Christianity then go to the life of Jesus and the apostle and how they were armed by nothing other than love and the good message. We cannot for example doom Democracy just because some of our leader decided to blow up Vietnam, Chorea or Iraq.
We do good because God have created us to do so, and I do agree that we have a choice and ultimately we pay the price of our choices. No one can do all good and as you have said yourself even Adam and Eve themselves, and that when true religion can change someone.


RE: Awesome Discovery
By William Gaatjes on 10/10/2009 1:28:15 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
I have read the Bible in more than ten translations in more than one language and I have not see any difference, please let me know what were the versions that you reading, reminding you again that you have to go to the original sources


It where all Christian bibles. Only from different communities and in the same language... I will have to look up the passage, i do remember it from memory but do not know which chapter.

quote:
by the true heart of that ideology itself


Without believing the bible or having a religion everything that you say that makes a christian such a wonderful person is natural and obvious to me, and i am not unique with that point of view, countless people feel the same. I do not feel the desire to hurt other people or any other life form in any way physical or psychological. But then again, i was lucky to have a good nature. Afcourse i am sometimes a hypocrite. I eat meat but only because i do not have to kill my food myself. For example, if i would have to kill my own chicken before i could eat it's meat i know i would be eating eggs for as long as the chicken's natural life allows. Probably taste horrible when it's old and deceased :). But then again plants and trees are lifeforms to but i eat the fruit and vegetables. You see, i understand why i must eat. To sustain myself. And once in a while i allow myself some tasty treats. I know which food works best for me to not have any digestion problems.

It's is all easy once you accept the simple fact that chaos in our daily lives really does not exist. What exists is the failure to grasp the complexity of that "chaos". That failure can be reduced and even turned into personal victory with knowledge.

My simple question to you is ?
What does that make me and countless of other people with me ? Those people can be atheists, or having various religions.

We do not feel the desire to hurt people or any animal, we just have a drive to understand. I repeat: Knowledge and compassion. Because that is how you grow as a person.

Again being a hypocrite when using for example lab animals. But because one day we understand so much about life we will be able to cure anything without using any lab animal. Computers are by many religious people seen as a tool from the devil. It is this device that allows us to do more and more realistic simulations without actually carrying out the experiment in real life. We use computers because our own minds are unlimited in grasping idea's and concepts but limited in speed of executing using those idea's and concepts in our minds. Too bad "god" sad that a small short term memory is enough for anyone :).

I again ask you :

My simple question to you is ?
What does that make me and countless of other people with me ? We naturally do what your ten commandments "force" upon you:

Do not ....

And by writing this i tell you my fear as other people who posted their comments expressed also. We fear religious people cause only a punishment in the afterlife keeps them in check. They would do everything that is forbidden by their religion. No knowledge or compassion...

It is not knowledge and compassion to keep them in check. It is fear that keeps people in check.

One more time :

Once people where totally uneducated.
Religion gave them a means to stop fighting each other by giving a common enemy.
The next step is actual knowledge and compassion but this was prevented by the then corrupted religious leaders who liked the power they have.
Nevertheless separation from state and religion happened and local humanity blossomed. Education for everyone was important it seems. Factual knowledge increased standards of life and reduced poverty. When there is no need to constantly seek shelter and food, there is time for more education through learning and good honest work. And more inventions arise. When people are more educated, they think more about how a society must function and true democracy is born. Too bad that corruption always happens. Pretty interesting. The adversaries true name is not satan or lucifer but corruption...


RE: Awesome Discovery
By thinkandbelieve on 10/11/2009 10:03:05 PM , Rating: 2
Thank you for your comments.
. First THE FUNDMENTAL mistake that so many people does is to put all religions as one, and if you try to explain that this is not correct and that for example Dictatorial system and democracy is not the same because it is all politics after all, or that the brain and stomach are the same because they are body organs after all, if only you try to explain, then you are a hateful person who try to divide people and it is very convenient to silence religious people anyway. However, I cannot speak about other religion since they have their own people to defend them, but THAT IS THE BEAUITY OF CHRISTIANITY, your relationship with God is not that of fear but that of LOVE. “ We love him because he loved us first”. He even taught us that when we pray to him address him as our father and continue to say “and forgive our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us”, He is forgiving God who asks his followers to be forgiving as we. You see, The God that is standing with a fork in front of a grill waiting for us to die is not the God of Christianity.
Accordingly Christian who do good do that as an extension of ultimate God’s love, forgiveness and compassion and not because fear of hill as you mentioned

Answering your simple questions, read the news, watch TV and more important go to history, it is full of the evil that we have done to one another even sometimes abusing religion itself to find a reason to go to war. Although we do good because God have created us to do so, out of our freedom of choice that he given us, we continued to do the opposite. So you think that you, me and thousands of other do good naturally and good only??
As I have invited you to read the Sermon on the Mount on John 5, 6 and 7, I still invite you to do so to see the true meaning of doing good in a Christian sense
There is a very big difference of self-centered good and God centered good but that is another big story
I can clearly see that you do not have a good knowledge of the Christian creed


RE: Awesome Discovery
By SSDMaster on 10/4/2009 12:06:16 PM , Rating: 1
Most scientists believe in Creation.
Your comments are all egocentric.


RE: Awesome Discovery
By BikeDude on 10/4/2009 12:48:23 PM , Rating: 2
Was that an attempt at sarcasm, or you actually believe that yourself?


RE: Awesome Discovery
By eliptical chaos on 10/9/2009 10:33:21 AM , Rating: 2
God who ?


Crazy
By B3an on 10/2/2009 2:13:26 PM , Rating: 5
It's really disappointing to see so many creationist and intelligent design morons on a tech site.

All these people only seem to pop up though when stuff like this is mentioned...




RE: Crazy
By jahwarrior on 10/2/09, Rating: -1
RE: Crazy
By KLO on 10/2/2009 7:27:23 PM , Rating: 5
Your stupid, if you don't like evolution, get off this site already. How many times do I have to tell you how dumb ass you really are.


RE: Crazy
By MrHanson on 10/2/09, Rating: -1
RE: Crazy
By KLO on 10/2/2009 3:55:04 PM , Rating: 5
Because we look for the evidence.


RE: Crazy
By Stacey Melissa on 10/2/2009 3:58:45 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
Really how is atheism and unguided naturalistic evolution not a religion?

Atheism is just lack of theism. See?... a-theism. And theism is just belief in one or more deities. So atheism is the lack of belief in deities. Atheism is no more a religion than theism is a religion. Both can be components of religion, and both can also stand separately.

Minimally, a religion is a worldview that utilizes rituals of some sort to communicate with an alleged supernatural entity or force, for a variety of purposes - typically placation, enlightenment, intervention requests, and so on. Neo-Darwinian theory lacks this absolutely required element of religion, as well as other typical-but-non-universal elements of religion. For that matter, so do atheism and theism, when viewed by themselves.

quote:
How does believing that life and all its complexities came about all on its own not require a strong faith?

(For one thing, abiogenesis is a separate matter from biological evolution, which began taking place later.)

Science has a solid track record of explaining things that people used to claim only the gods could have created. Religion has no similarly proven track record. So I trust that science will continue to work in the future based on the fact that it has worked consistently in the past - not on the basis of faith.

More specifically, I find the general idea of chemical evolution quite plausible, even though the details are still up in the air right now. And chemical evolution could have led to biological evolution, or what we know as speciation. OTOH, I find the idea of a disembodied intelligence - much less a disembodied supreme creator intelligence that just happened to exist for no reason at all - utterly laughable. I can believe an utterly simple glob of mass-energy (for lack of a better term) that now comprises our universe in a much different form, could just happen to exist at some point prior to the Big Bang. But not a disembodied super intelligent creator entity. That's ridiculous, not to mention absurdly anthropocentric.


RE: Crazy
By KITH on 10/2/2009 5:40:42 PM , Rating: 2
Atheism - 2 a : a disbelief in the existence of deity b : the doctrine that there is no deitY - Merriam-Webster

Agnostic - 1 : a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god
2 : a person unwilling to commit to an opinion about something <political agnostics> - Merriam-Webster

You sir are confused. An Atheist believes there is no diety, not that it is unproven, that would be an Agnostic. Also, atheists tend to be pretty antagonistic towards people who do believe in a deity, look at you for an example.


RE: Crazy
By Gzus666 on 10/2/2009 10:04:14 PM , Rating: 5
You sir are misinformed. When you prepend A on the front, means without. Without theism is the literal definition of the word and the Greek definition is without gods, the dictionary merely takes popular meaning and takes it down. In debate, you may make any definition you wish to a word, you merely have to specify this definition up front. But the proper definition would be without belief in a god. As such, I see no evidence for any gods, so I will not blindly accept any. If evidence was presented, I would accept but not worship said deity. Define that with whatever term you wish, but that is the reality of the situation.

No evidence means no reason to believe. No matter how hard you want something to be true doesn't make it true. Belief is the realm of nitwits. Accepting things without evidence seems to be steadfast in the unintelligent masses, sometimes putting it above actual evidence.

All religious people are atheist to every god but their own, just take it one step further and you are there. I'm sure every person thinks their god is the right one, cause we all have inflated egos and many have delusions of grandeur.


RE: Crazy
By Stacey Melissa on 10/3/2009 11:45:09 AM , Rating: 5
The definitions you gave are the colloquial ones. They aren't the ones that experts on atheism and agnosticism, such as myself, use. Experts define atheism exactly as I did. See, e.g. authors Michal Martin, George Smith, Theodore Drange, etc. We further break down atheists into "strong" and "weak" categories. Weak atheists merely lack belief in deities. Strong atheists believe there are no deities (which of course also entails lack of belief in extant deities). Agnosticism is not a middle ground between atheism and theism. It answers a different question. Whereas (a)theism answers the question of whether one believes in the existence of deities, (a)gnostic answers the question of whether one believes we can know whether deities exist. One can be an agnostic atheist, or an agnostic theist, just as easily.

quote:
Also, atheists tend to be pretty antagonistic towards people who do believe in a deity, look at you for an example.

I think you're just imagining antagonism from me. I've been nothing but polite to the theists here, even as they post a mountain of unduly prejudiced opinions, inaccurate information, and poorly reasoned arguments about evolution and atheists and others who accept Neo-Darwinian theory, and they rate my polite and informative posts down simply because I hold an opposing opinion. I also get along just fine with my family, which is almost entirely comprised of practicing fundamentalist Christians. I've even dated a few practicing fundamentalist Christians. They've always dumped me for Jesus after a few months, though. But I can't say I blame them, considering Jesus is much better looking than me in his artistic depictions.


RE: Crazy
By Gzus666 on 10/2/2009 9:38:26 PM , Rating: 5
Because religion is governed by a set of beliefs. Science in all forms is governed by evidence that led one to a conclusion. If the evidence changes, is looked at differently by their peers or more of it arises, then the conclusion must change. This is what differentiates religion from science.

I find it odd that religious people just try to bring science down to their level of stupidity rather than try to properly argue their position. A belief of any sort is stupid as it is baseless and anyone can pull one out of their butt.

Also, you are confusing abiogenesis and evolution. RNA has synthesized on its own in a lab simulating the Earth's early environment, one step till DNA.

Atheism is the lack of belief in a god, right in the name is defines a lack of a belief, there by excluding it from being a religion. Learn to articulate and properly present something. There are people on the side of religion with real degrees and do nothing but study this crap, yet they can't come up with a reasonable argument, do you really think you are up to that challenge? Clearly not.


Another shot to creationists
By eelder100 on 10/2/2009 10:52:15 AM , Rating: 5
First of all the Bible was not written by God, it was written by men. Genesis got the creation wrong. The Genesis account affirms that the Earth was created on the first day of that initial week (Genesis 1:1), and that the Sun and stars were created later. Genesis states that light existed before the Sun was created (Genesis 1:3,16), while evolution contends that the Sun was the Earth’s first light.The Bible teaches that fruit-bearing trees existed before fish were created (Genesis 1:11,20), but evolution contends that fish evolved long before fruit-bearing trees. See http://www.christiancourier.com/articles/1043-are-...

The real superstars of the ancient world were the Greeks who gave us science, logic and democracy. The Hebrews gave us some fantastic literature. BTW radiocarbon dating is accurate to dates as late as 60,000 years ago with a 3,000 year margin or error. Radiometric age dating indicates the Earth is about 4.5 billion years old.




RE: Another shot to creationists
By mytonytiger on 10/2/09, Rating: -1
RE: Another shot to creationists
By Seemonkeyscanfly on 10/2/09, Rating: -1
RE: Another shot to creationists
By KLO on 10/2/2009 3:57:55 PM , Rating: 4
Wow, if first God made heaven and earth then when did he make the person who witnessed it who recorded it in any which way fashion? If we had not had the history of recording what we do...then we would of miraculously thought he also created the pencil!


RE: Another shot to creationists
By Gzus666 on 10/2/2009 9:20:54 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
And God made the two great lights, the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night; he made the stars also. 17


Funny how he made stars after there was light. If the bible was written by man and they lived on Earth, then the day would be defined as an Earth day unless specifically defined other wise. An all knowing god would know this of course, as he should have basic skills of literacy.

I find it absolutely insane how you make all these assertions without any evidence. You say the nature of this deity and what he was thinking all in absolute certainty, but in reality, you don't know. You have no evidence. This story is delightfully vague and doesn't account for the background radiation which shows evidence for the Big Bang. Why didn't he account for black holes that he "made"? What about the fact there are planets and stars much older than our planet, yet aren't defined in this story? Why didn't he account for space time expanding faster than the speed of light? You would think he would give this knowledge as many civilizations were quite advanced by the time this book was written. Why didn't god approach the Chinese, they would be better equipped for this understanding considering how advanced they were. How about the Egyptians as they were quite advanced.

Once again, provide proof and not deductive or inductive arguments but actual empirical evidence, otherwise you are merely speculating and have not met the burden of proof.


By Seemonkeyscanfly on 10/6/2009 12:12:17 PM , Rating: 2
"Funny how he made stars after there was light."

What is even funnier is how someone can quote the first line of the Bible, give you a link to an electron edition, and even explains what it means and you still make a totally wrong statement....

Again God made the heavens and earth first.... Sun, star, other planets... That's the heavens. The Heavens and Earth are in same time frame since in the same line but Heaven is list first, so the Earth was not first. This is the Start of the Bible. Light comes after this. OK now based on what I gave you to read and the quote I gave you before and how clear it was that time and you still got it wrong. I realize you are not very bright, but is it clear to you now... NO first came the heavens and Earth, later light... Use someones quote correctly or do not make any statement at all.


RE: Another shot to creationists
By Morphine06 on 10/2/09, Rating: 0
RE: Another shot to creationists
By ScienceRules on 10/2/2009 1:34:25 PM , Rating: 3
Wow! And you guys complain that too much is made out of a few bones! Incredible speculation going on here.


RE: Another shot to creationists
By Proxes on 10/2/2009 4:49:32 PM , Rating: 1
People see what they want to see. If you're someone looking for the missing link you'll try to make anything you find fit your needs.


RE: Another shot to creationists
By Gzus666 on 10/2/2009 9:27:11 PM , Rating: 5
I find it odd that you chastise the scientists that have concrete evidence, yet the people with sky fairies with no evidence and a poorly written book of fables get off without a word.

We don't understand how gravity actually works, are you ready to chastise them for having a theory? How about atomic theory, since Bohr's model is completely wrong, yet it is still part of the theory? These things work and so does evolutionary theory, taxonomy and paleontology. People don't understand these sciences as well cause they are poorly taught in most schools if they are taught at all.


I think I know his family....
By Seemonkeyscanfly on 10/2/2009 9:59:35 AM , Rating: 3
"Ardi is closer to humans than chimps. Measuring in at 47 in. (120 cm) tall and 110 lb. (50 kg), Ardi likely walked with a strange gait, lurching side to side, due to lack of an arch in its feet, a feature of later hominids."

This describes the guys who come by to cut my lawn. Short, not too heavy, bent over a bit and swaying from side to side as they move.

I know it maybe impossible to find but it would be great if they could find a group of bodies... not just one. With just one you have a very poor sample... you may have a freaky size creature from that time period. It would be like 1 million years from now they dig up Andrea the Giant or maybe Mini me but could not find the remains of anyone else. Their conclusions would be wrong or very off at best.




RE: I think I know his family....
By tastyratz on 10/2/2009 10:13:02 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Still, with over 110 remnants discovered from over 35 other Ardi's and a complete skeleton


while not complete skeletons, wouldn't 35 of a-dog's friends paint a good picture? A lot of things can be learned even from just 1 bone.
So easy, even a paleontologist can do it...


RE: I think I know his family....
By Denigrate on 10/2/2009 10:28:14 AM , Rating: 2
Sure. 35 different dog breeds would paint a pretty amazing picture. From Great Danes to miniture Poodles. How much DNA have they extracted from the skeletons? Oh, none since the DNA was long since destroyed by time. I also like how an entire skeleton was made from the various pieces they show on the front of that magazine cover.


RE: I think I know his family....
By KITH on 10/2/2009 5:42:49 PM , Rating: 2
Yet all the dogs could interbreed. A dog is a dog.


RE: I think I know his family....
By Seemonkeyscanfly on 10/2/2009 11:57:24 AM , Rating: 2
Agreed you can learn a lot from one bone but can not learn all from one bone or even one complete set... need several complete sets. Point being the more the better... it would be nice (very lucky) if we could find a group... like a family or some community that died together...


RE: I think I know his family....
By mytonytiger on 10/2/2009 12:15:50 PM , Rating: 2
Not so lucky for the family or community I think. :)


By Seemonkeyscanfly on 10/2/2009 12:48:55 PM , Rating: 3
True, but it would be good for science.... any volunteers for the next go around??? If they dig you up in a million years you'll be famous..


RE: I think I know his family....
By nafhan on 10/2/2009 11:44:42 AM , Rating: 1
I was thinking the same thing... without being able to analyze the DNA, it doesn't sound like they can be certain that this isn't a human with screwed up feet or something. Still, it's pretty interesting the number of informed conclusions a scientist can get from a few bones.


RE: I think I know his family....
By Gzus666 on 10/2/2009 9:05:08 PM , Rating: 2
It isn't just bones, they use geology, biology, taxonomy and physics. You don't just look at a bone and take wild stabs, you have to find bones in similar layers of sediment, date them through radiometric dating (which is accurate, I don't want to hear any retard try to deny it, read about it before you blather) and use biology and taxonomy to place what species it comes from and how it links to other species found in similar layers in the area.

People don't understand science. The more I read about people's ignorance is the more I see why extremely smart people go nuts. I couldn't imagine being like Newton around the ignorant buffoons he had to exist with. Yet he and men like him press on even in the face of ignorance to provide advancement for this race. Ungrateful rednecks and the religious will usually be at the forefront of the anti-science movement all while reaping the benefits of it. If you don't accept science, stop using the things it brought you I say. This of course was a general rant not directed at you.


This, just in!
By IcePickFreak on 10/2/2009 12:23:38 PM , Rating: 5
I find it odd how people just can't accept that we simply do not know. The majority of people can't change the oil in their vehicle, know how it works, how it was built starting from mining the metals, yet somehow they know how the entire existence of man works including how it all began.

I'm not claiming to have any answers here, but I suspect that from the mining and refining of metals to the finally assembly of an automobile is a ridiculously simple process in comparison to the original creation and the following advancement (I don't dare say evolution here) of man in the relatively short span of the past 2000 years (I think we all agree man has been around for 2000 years at least.)

The 'evolution' side of things is at least interesting as it does show some history of our planet. That said, it's not 100% fact and I don't think any scientist worth their salt would say it's 100% undeniable fact. They are theories based on real evidence, such as this skeleton. Much like say a murder scene, a detective doesn't get to the scene, see the body and instantly proclaim "Col. Mustard did it in the library with a candle stick!"

Faith is the same in that it's a theory as well. It may have some historic value, but in reality it's the word of man and therefore not an absolute truth - there are no laws of physics etc to abide by like a skeleton pulled from the earth has to. Not unlike some evolutionists, some take it as an absolute truth but I think followers of faith have far more fanatics (I've never heard of a scientist killing another scientist because he has a different theory.) With faith based beliefs though is it's just that, faith - ie. believing in something against all odds, with the perk that if you do you're considered even more faithful. The catch here is that it takes death to reap the rewards of this faith so it can't really be proven. Of course there is the possibility there's a whole lot of "I told you so!" going on in the line at the gates of St. Peter, or one of the many other "waiting rooms" of the various faiths.

People need to accept that we, as a collective, simply do not know. Take the information, theories, and possibilities into consideration for yourself and apply it to your own knowledge and form your own theories. Share your theories with others and embrace the fact that others have theories of their own to share and new possibilities for each other to, again, consider. However, running around proclaiming you have absolute truths when all you have is one of an infinite amount of theories - or worse yet killing others who don't believe in your theory - makes you look a bit desperate to appear intelligent when you are far from it.




RE: This, just in!
By tjggm on 10/2/2009 1:02:18 PM , Rating: 2
Nicely stated, IPF. Wish I could have said it as well. Nice job.


RE: This, just in!
By Gzus666 on 10/2/2009 10:47:14 PM , Rating: 3
Blah blah blah, science doesn't claim fact. Only math has the right to claim absolute accuracy, all others rely on empirical evidence to be as accurate as possible. We can say gravity happens, but we can't prove it will always and has always happened that way. In fact, during the singularity, the laws of physics didn't apply. This means that the things we discover through science only apply if the axioms we made to begin with remain true. This of course is an assumption. It doesn't require faith, it is just pointless to try to guess whether things were different, as it will get you nowhere. As such, science is fully able to adapt to changes of this sort if needed. If tomorrow gravity stopped working (entirely possible), the scientific community would adapt to the new environment (before everything fell apart and we all died of course).

You are disingenuous like most creationists. Faith means you accept something based on no evidence, on the other hand a theory is rooted deeply in evidence, it is the why for the observed phenomenon. Would you really have the gall to compare Islam to the theory of gravity?

We know lots, you just don't know. You seem to think that your small world view is comparable to the history of human discovery. No one man holds all the information. The scientific community builds upon it and works on small portions of it per person. Science is not a democracy, no one decides what is true and what isn't. It is based on evidence and can be usurped based on new evidence.

You and people like you are the reason I hate this country. Not because of your religious dogma, but because of your lack of understanding and poor education, possibly even low IQ. People like you are a detriment to this country and dare say it, this world. You breed and indoctrinate your children with this same bull. I honestly hope you and any spawn of you just die in your sleep. I don't wish pain, I just don't want people like you continuing the ignorance and dragging down society.

I long for the days when robots are commonplace and we can engineer our own life and offspring. Maybe then we can reduce people like you, but this is assuming we can keep enough intelligent people working hard to progress this society in spite of people like you.


RE: This, just in!
By IcePickFreak on 10/3/2009 11:46:44 AM , Rating: 2
You sure you replied to the right post? I'm not even sure what you're arguing here.

I'm disingenuous like most creationists, and thankfully you don't hate me because of my religious dogma? I'm not sure you know who or what you're arguing either.

That said, thanks for providing and example of the statement made in the last sentence of my previous post.


RE: This, just in!
By Stacey Melissa on 10/3/2009 12:28:30 PM , Rating: 2
Geez, man. So he totally mangled the concepts of "theory" and "faith" with his own bizarre definitions. And he has even apparently bought into postmodernism, with its false equivalency of assertions. Those are both mistakes that are well worth correcting, but they're not reasons for wishing death on someone and their progeny. Chill out.


RE: This, just in!
By Senju on 10/5/2009 8:11:38 AM , Rating: 2
Well put! Thank you for you comments IcePickFreak!!!


Personal Attacks
By Rockinelle on 10/2/09, Rating: 0
RE: Personal Attacks
By mikeholloway on 10/2/2009 1:40:34 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I don't understand why someone who posts a pro creationist comment gets attacked personally. Calling a creationist ignorant, naive, stupid, un-educated, illogical, irrational or any other number of attempts to discredit someone is not a rebuttal.


Its like how Colbert introduced his interview with Dawkins on Wednesday. Something like "Regardless of the facts I'll have the same conclusions I started with." (you have to understand Colbert's shtick). They have an agenda that has nothing to do with the facts of science. Disprove their argument, get them to acknowledge that they were wrong, and they'll turn around and use the same fallacious nonsense on a fresh audience. To all the above I'd add "liar". They are not honest, even when they're just parroting. If you want to say something about science you have to look at the peer reviewed liturature and what scientists conclude. You don't get to vote on it.


RE: Personal Attacks
By Gzus666 on 10/2/2009 10:13:40 PM , Rating: 2
I wish this statement could be handed to every person in the world. Maybe even read to them a few times. This is absolutely correct and what they always forget to realize.


RE: Personal Attacks
By ClownPuncher on 10/2/2009 5:29:58 PM , Rating: 4
How much melted wax has been displaced? What level of wax is vaporized into the air? How much water is in the wax? It would be pretty simple to calculate the volume of the candle, pre burned, using science, thus figuring out how long it has been burning.


RE: Personal Attacks
By Gzus666 on 10/2/2009 10:23:51 PM , Rating: 5
You pulled this garbage from one of the creationist websites, I recognize it. This of course is BS. You decide they make assumptions, when they don't. Specifically, what assumptions are made when dating?

http://www.asa3.org/ASA/RESOURCES/WIENS.html

Enjoy reading from a Christian that is refuting idiocy of creationist claims of inaccuracy.

As for the inaccuracy of specimens taken, having dirty samples can cause this, this is why they don't only use radiometric dating. You must find a clean sample. Also you must remember if something is sent to you in a lab, you don't get to see where the sample was taken and cannot employ Incremental dating, which is part of the picture.

You are cherry picking facts and you are a liar. You are trying to make it out to be false cause you don't like it as you feel threatened by it. Stop it, you are holding back the world's progress, you are a detriment to civilization and really shouldn't be allowed to be part of it.


RE: Personal Attacks
By jahwarrior on 10/5/2009 3:27:17 PM , Rating: 1
speaking of personal atttacks..

http://www.icr.org/article/4898/


YUP
By matsa on 10/2/2009 10:29:58 AM , Rating: 1
Ignorant people! Of course we evolved, it is common scientific fact that we were first a dot spinning fast, than we were a one celled amoeba, than a fish, than a chimp like creature now we can drive cars! how come people cant just believe that! It frustrates me! Oh and hopefully i got all the steps down, they change so often! Evolutionist please keep me updated with the changes, we need to stick together on this so we dont look so foolish




RE: YUP
By Denigrate on 10/2/2009 10:30:29 AM , Rating: 2
Dude, don't you know that an alien race "seeded" the earth and created all that we see today?


RE: YUP
By Rhino3081 on 10/2/2009 10:41:05 AM , Rating: 2
LOL!


RE: YUP
By Seemonkeyscanfly on 10/2/2009 12:04:31 PM , Rating: 2
you forgot the poop and shoe throwing stage of evolution... oh wait we are still in that stage. Maybe we never really do advance we just change our appearance.


RE: YUP
By Gzus666 on 10/2/2009 9:30:02 PM , Rating: 2
When did evolution become advancement? Sharks have been around in pretty much the same form for millions of years, before even the dinosaurs. Clearly they were pretty well laid out. Evolution is just adapting to your environment, not advancing along some walkway or moving up some ladder.


RE: YUP
By KLO on 10/2/2009 4:05:52 PM , Rating: 2
The ones that have yet to evolve are also evident in our presence and just proves that we can walk amongst earlier species that have not evolved such as chimps. Take for instance those to have not evolved to understand that it takes proof to prove a theory and that the bible is akin to mythology! If they still believe it then they have not studied enough or their brains are incapable and have reached their potential limits. Religion should simply be seen as a spiritual practice for meditation not as all whole and true. Belief is not necessary to derive the benefits of religion but practicing meditation is. It brings you to that place in the Right Hemisphere of your brain that one is able to control only with careful meditation that can prolong your life, reduce cortisol stress levels, make brain-chatter quiet, provide focus to a busy mind, and over-all well being..much like careful consideration prior to making a comment.


RE: YUP
By rfon on 10/2/2009 4:22:59 PM , Rating: 2
I assent.

As a Buddhist, I believe that meditation is the way to go. Also, Buddhism does not contradict the Theory of Evolution by even one iota.


Ok ...
By liberateandthink on 10/2/2009 2:02:31 PM , Rating: 3
So much for my little soapbox earlier. I think humanity is doomed. Armageddon will be the creationists and evolutionists assembling on the plains of the Midwest chucking copies of the Bible and Origin of the Species at each other. Maybe those of us that are sane enough not to fight fights we are never going to win will survive and repopulate the earth. Ugh.




RE: Ok ...
By mikeholloway on 10/2/2009 3:06:56 PM , Rating: 3
No, you're laboring under false assumptions. There are two camps that make the entertaining conflict in the media and blogs: intolerant atheists and intolerant fundamentalists. If you pay attention you'll note that neither is primarily concerned with science. The militant atheists make propaganda lies about religion, and the extreme fundamentalists make propaganda lies about science.

The fallout from this mess is misinformation about science. Those that care about the science, and science education, can't, and shouldn't, ignore the spreading of misinformation. Scientists and educators especially have an obligation to speak up. They're target audience isn't so much the fundamentalists, who'll largely ignore anything that doesn't agree with them, but the greater population who might, for instance, occasionally tune into Fox News and take in some lies about evolution from the Discovery Institute.

Its not futile at all. We now vote on issues that require knowledge of real science. Its vital that the general public be able to recognize real science news and know what to make of it.


RE: Ok ...
By liberateandthink on 10/2/2009 3:37:16 PM , Rating: 2
So much for my joke. Your reply is an echo of what I posted before this. Check it out ... believe me I get it. I'm still going to let the irrational name callers take themselves out and start my own country though.


RE: Ok ...
By KLO on 10/2/2009 3:50:01 PM , Rating: 2
I agree with you, and well for the latter post previous to yours, I think those that want to impose their beliefs and those that want to argue them will simply kill each other. And the point is what is left are the scientist that simply do science and research. The information is out there for those that need it and its unnecessary to impose anything on anyone as it really does not lead to anything especially in evolution. But for the scientist that believe a passive approach will ensure their numbers.


Ask yourself ...
By randomposter on 10/2/2009 10:09:44 AM , Rating: 2
How many beers would it take before you'd consider hitting that?




RE: Ask yourself ...
By acase on 10/2/2009 10:29:31 AM , Rating: 1
bare knuckled or with a baseball bat?


RE: Ask yourself ...
By ThereisnoGOD on 10/2/2009 10:44:55 AM , Rating: 1
WELLLLLLLLL I LIKE A BASEBALL BAT


RE: Ask yourself ...
By Seemonkeyscanfly on 10/2/2009 11:49:46 AM , Rating: 3
I'm guessing 3 shots everclear, 6 shots Tequila, and about 30 beers.. Then the rabies shot and a Viagra pill. That would be my best guess.



Lets look at fact
By jbl1234 on 10/2/09, Rating: 0
RE: Lets look at fact
By Stacey Melissa on 10/2/2009 12:17:40 PM , Rating: 5
I skimmed over this one:
http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2910

Judging from the picture of the fossil right there on the cover of Science, as shown above, that apologist - with his PhD's in fields that are not evolutionary biology - pretty badly misrepresented the completeness of the fossil. He also pretty badly twisted the comments of the biologists to suggest they were making far more of the fossil than they actually were.

Are the other articles any better? Or can we expect to find more of the same fallacious strawman arguments from the religious apologist with inapplicable PhD's?


RE: Lets look at fact
By KLO on 10/2/2009 3:39:48 PM , Rating: 2
I like the different points of view the first article was trying to correct. For instance that giraffes were so widely accepted as having evolved long necks due to over-stretching to reach higher fauna (leaves) that other animals could not reach as an advantage and process of striving then passing on those striving genes to offspring. I do not agree with that. Many mutations occur spontaneously due to simple chemistry. Not enough of this or that can change the chemistry of cellular activity regardless of what the DNA may tell it to do. Much like smoking causes cancer in a body that was meant to live beyond certain years or how we inadvertently stunt our own growth. So I also disagree with some points on how we can not change our own DNA as it is found that some chemical substances if ingested can cause our DNA to mutate as well like radiactivity. Therefore ti would not go without arguing that perhaps some of it is true and all findings of all possible descendants are just really mutated. One from one descendant of one species and another from another. However, what is actually remarkable is the manner in which the human brain has evolved to allow our present manner of thinking. Due to the fact that we can use our brains to create things and make interesting decisions that alter our future it goes without saying that indeed we can alter our own genetic makeup simply by choosing a better mate. A mate with a longer neck to ensure our offspring have longer necks for instance. If that was a benefit to our present population we would all be doing it. For now some people have succumbed to plastic is better and succumb to painful surgery which to me is just crazy. I would rather pick a better mate. Its funner too!


What about sex???
By R3T4rd on 10/2/2009 10:49:19 AM , Rating: 2
Okay we know how humans have sex...various ways ofcourse. And we know how primates have sex. How this so called "Link" to the past have sex? Any women want to ellaborate on this? Or perhaps demonstrate? No...seriously.




RE: What about sex???
By KLO on 10/2/2009 11:53:17 AM , Rating: 2
I am not exactly sure what you are asking about sex, but in the context of sex, in the article when they mention how this hominid may have been more like present humans because of their teeth and what that may have meant about their sexual habits,...

"Scientists have theorized that Ardi may have formed human-like relationships with pairing between single males and females. Evidence of this is found in the male's teeth, which lack the long canines that gorillas and other non-monogamous apes use to battle for females. Describes Professor Lovejoy, "The male canine tooth is no longer projecting or sharp. It's no longer weaponry." ...

I completely disagree because we all know we humans have very different teeth from one another even in our own family line however sometimes teeth in one family line are very similar. I have very big and sharp bi-cuspids and I have never wanted to steal anyone else's mate or bitten anyone or desired to bite anyone! Second, I don't even desire very much meat, and lastly, I am actually very shy and in my family there are others who are shy and others who are gregarious but none of us have bitten anyone else or stolen anyone else's mate except my old aunt Gladys, she uses her boobs, her legs, her hair, sking, perfume, and clothes. But she has small teeth! Go figure! These scientists need to thik harder! Maybe they need to a vacation to reconnect with nature. Btw...i am female so that may be why. Still females have not always been monogagomous, oh wait, no one really is actually. That is a society and culturally imposed habit! Even those who sleep together find that every so often their mate has wandered into a tryst. Hmm, re-think, out of the box!


RE: What about sex???
By BikeDude on 10/4/2009 5:07:25 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I have very big and sharp bi-cuspids and I have never wanted to steal anyone else's mate or bitten anyone or desired to bite anyone!


Define "very big". If you compare your teeth to those of the gorillas mentioned in the text you cite, do they really measure up?

It is good that you do not trust everything the scientists say. It is not good if you do not also apply the same amount of doubt and scepticism when leafing through the bible. The bible tells people to burn witches. It is not a good book.


Guide for the Perplexed
By mikeholloway on 10/2/2009 1:08:52 PM , Rating: 3
Can I offer some perspective please?

Science does not disprove religion. Palentology and evolutionary biology were not created to, and do not have the goal to, disprove religion. Peer reviewed science, that is, real science, is what it is. There is no biased world view operating in it concerned about religion, one way or the other.

Two camps in the general population debate over evolution absolutely insist that evolution disproves religion: a subset of atheists who enjoy being militant, intolerant, and rude, and intolerant religious fundamentalists. The two share many characteristics in their use of propaganda and determined ignorance. You should ignore what the atheists have to say about religion, and what the fundamentalists have to say about science.




RE: Guide for the Perplexed
By Shmuck63 on 10/2/2009 8:31:46 PM , Rating: 1
Lets look at what was said by "Guide for the Perplexed".

"a subset of atheists who enjoy being militant, intolerant, and rude, and intolerant religious fundamentalists"

It seems to me that the religious ones are the starting the wars.

Catholics vs Protestants... come on you both have generally the same ideas

Jewish persecution by the Germans.. at least you guys agree on the old testament

Muslims vs Christians... give me a break, many of the passages in your holy books have the same historic origins and refer to the same events. You just call them different things and are currently guided by different groups of people seeking power for different reasons.

Its seems like most of the major wars are created by those that believe in a god, but can't live with each other.

The atheists tend to be bystanders looking on in disbelief while the religious kill each other.


RE: Guide for the Perplexed
By Gzus666 on 10/2/09, Rating: 0
RE: Guide for the Perplexed
By mircea on 10/4/2009 10:10:50 AM , Rating: 2
No war was started by religion. All wars were started by men pretending in a greater or smaller way to be religious.

Comunism has lead a 40 year war against any religion on behalf of atheism and has killed millions in eastern Europe because they were believers and went to church on some days instead of the factory, and it still kills in China and North Korea.


This is a non-story
By Chuckkellie on 10/2/2009 3:43:04 PM , Rating: 2
We have an extremely crushed “Irish stew” fossil that has undergone extensive reconstruction in order to become part of a PR campaign to make bold claims of ancestral status to the human line, even though at base its qualities are very similar to previously known fossils, and there's a lot of skepticism about the claims being made. In other words, we have the typical media circus that we find every time a new "missing link" is found.




RE: This is a non-story
By jahwarrior on 10/2/2009 5:28:33 PM , Rating: 2
cheers!


RE: This is a non-story
By KLO on 10/2/09, Rating: 0
RE: This is a non-story
By jahwarrior on 10/5/2009 3:44:47 PM , Rating: 2
wow….seriously why all the anger and personal attacks?..well I guess they are fitting since I don’t subscribe to your evolutionary atheism…its funny how all you can do is attack people that have different views from you.. I thought you liberals were “open minded” and accepting of all views…I guess it’s just the truth you don’t accept…

Par for the course:
http://www.icr.org/article/4898/


The journey from then to now.
By tjggm on 10/2/2009 10:54:44 AM , Rating: 2
There is an explanation of how we started and how we ended up as what we are today. Will we ever know exactly how it all transpired? Probably not. Can we have different thoughts on the subject? Sure. Does it have much relevance on the way we live and interact with each other? Probably not. It's ok with me what you believe. Let me be comfortable with my beliefs also.




RE: The journey from then to now.
By acase on 10/2/2009 11:47:08 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Does it have much relevance on the way we live and interact with each other?


Of course not. Unless you count almost every war in history. And the countless attacks around the world on a daily basis.


By TerranMagistrate on 10/2/2009 11:26:50 AM , Rating: 2
But it won't make a monkey out of me...




By Gzus666 on 10/2/2009 11:06:40 PM , Rating: 2
Too late.


That Monkey Look Like Me.
By nikobalack on 10/2/2009 11:57:20 AM , Rating: 2
I am 6'1 i have long hands.Only missing third leg.Maybe one day aliens come this world they like the monkeys.They made sex with them human born after that aliens leaves the monkeys and human being born this world.Human get brains from alien Shape from Monkeys.How about that.:)).Theory is a theory isn't it.




By maximus pistoficus on 10/3/2009 5:58:53 AM , Rating: 2
This is just as good as theory as anyone has proposed..plus you do it politely without dissing someone for what they believe...you obviously are from another planet!!


mix it up
By still kickin on 10/2/2009 12:57:55 PM , Rating: 2
religion is brain washing, why wouldn't these animals cross breed and make different beings. look at the times today..people are mixing up races..soon we will all be the same if we last that long




RE: mix it up
By KLO on 10/2/2009 4:25:27 PM , Rating: 2
I don't think we can be the same due to DNA splitting and coalescing with another's code and how long it actually is. Take the code on a locker, how many combinations can you get? You may reach a point of finite combinations but the combinations are all different, hence different mutations.


distraction distraction
By bnthrdntht on 10/2/2009 1:11:03 PM , Rating: 2
Keep busy debating the past do not consider the future.
The latest study of pollution causing males of all species to be transgendered by pollution covered only fish in the United States waterways.80% to 90% were discovered to be transgendered some of the males showing EGGS in the organs that should have been testes.
The prevoius studys done [A report of the Great Lakes Natural Resource Center National wildlife federation, April 4,1994] showed a change taking place in higher mammals.
The latest study coveres only fish.
Why?
So that the public does not respond to the information as it would to information showing the affect on higher mammals, including humans.After all its only the fish right?
So lets all get good and worked up about the past and ignore the future,the one where all males are chemically castrated before birth.
If 80 to 90% of the fish in the enviornment that were supposed to be born male are now born as false females what about the mammals?
Will the human species survive that?




RE: distraction distraction
By Tim Young on 10/3/2009 8:00:22 AM , Rating: 2
Yeah, I kinda touched on that..

I'm with you bro or, sister!


distraction distraction
By bnthrdntht on 10/2/2009 1:14:13 PM , Rating: 2
Keep busy debating the past do not consider the future.
The latest study of pollution causing males of all species to be transgendered by pollution covered only fish in the United States waterways.80% to 90% were discovered to be transgendered some of the males showing EGGS in the organs that should have been testes.
The prevoius studys done [A report of the Great Lakes Natural Resource Center National wildlife federation, April 4,1994] showed a change taking place in higher mammals.
The latest study coveres only fish.
Why?
So that the public does not respond to the information as it would to information showing the affect on higher mammals, including humans.After all its only the fish right?
So lets all get good and worked up about the past and ignore the future,the one where all males are chemically castrated before birth.
If 80 to 90% of the fish in the enviornment that were supposed to be born male are now born as false females what about the mammals?
Will the human species survive that?




RE: distraction distraction
By KLO on 10/2/2009 4:35:47 PM , Rating: 2
The problem isn't ignoring, its just direction. Evolutionist need to understand the value of their findings and have it correspond with what it means for our future, not just look for things in the past. There is a disconnect that if corrected would prove to be very beneficial to the future of our planet.


Gonna say this and get out of the way
By liberateandthink on 10/2/2009 1:20:39 PM , Rating: 2
Followers of Christ, Buddha, Mohamed, Darwin (Yes, Darwin :P) ... whoever. Take a breath and realize what the other side is saying. Yes we could have been created, seeded by aliens ... whatever. Yes we could have evolved. We will never know the complete picture, as science is always changing. Heck two weeks ago there wasn't much water on the moon, now we want to go up and mine it. It's too bad Ardi didn't keep scientific records, but due to our scientific process and our technology, though ever advancing, it is impossible for us to figure everything out and prove one side wrong or right.

It is both fun and worthwhile to discover new things about our pasts and speculate about our futures, but neither science nor religion should be used as a wedge to drive us away from fellow humans. I bet a lot of religious folks don't know that the Bible calls believers to refrain from physical violence (Mathew 5:39 Luke 6:37), or that God causes sickness in his own people (Numbers 11:33). I also doubt that the scientists of Darwin know that he wrote "The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex". One of the most misogynistic works to come out of the 19th century, used by the upper echelons of 19th century British society to prove women's inferiority biologically in an effort to deny them basic civil and legal rights.

I am not on one side or the other. I love how science has made our lives better and is helping us discover where we came from, but I also have my faith. Remember when ya say "F**k you", no matter what they believe, you are saying it to a fellow member of the species ... So take whatever God you pray to and his ideas with a grain of salt, because neither side has it entirely figured out.

... and play nice. haha

As for Ardi ... Awesome discovery. Too bad DNA is so fragile, it would be interesting to see how closely related we are to him!