backtop


Print 113 comment(s) - last by Belard.. on Aug 15 at 5:51 AM

Path of human evolution continues to be enriched and elucidated by growing trove of fossil evidence

In comments to the media, renowned paleoanthropologist Richard Leakey opined that the evolution debate "would soon be over" thanks to a growing wealth of fossil evidence.  The latest piece of the puzzle comes courtesy of Professor Leakey's wife, Meave Leakey, and his mother, Louise Leakey, who are busy working on the excavation of a site east of Lake Turkana.

I. Two New Branches on the Evolutionary Tree

Located in Eastern Africa, specifically in the north of Kenya and south of Ethiopia, the Turkana Basin has been the site of some of many astonishing and fortunate fossil discoveries that have given mankind a glimpse of its evolutionary ancestors.  In fact the region proved so fruitful that the Leakey family of famed anthropologists raised funds to open Turkana Basin Institute (TBI), a special research institution devoted to studying the region's fossils and human evolution.

The recent discoveries were made by Professors Louise and Meave Leakey, along with other TBI researchers and researchers from the Koobi Fora Research Project (KFRP) -- a evolutionary research team funded by the National Geographic Society.

Lake Turkana Basin
The Turkana basin is located in Eastern Africa. [Orig. Image Source: Google Maps]

Unearthed between 2007 and 2009, the find includes a face, a remarkably complete lower jaw, and part of a second lower jaw.  Researchers believe that the fossils belong to not one, but two genus Homo species, which lived beside mankind's direct ancestor, Homo erectus.

II. Solving a Big Mystery

The find solves the mystery of KNM-ER 1470 -- the research designation given to a mysterious hominid skull fossil found four decades ago.  The KNM-ER 1470 specimen featured a striking long, flat-face -- à la the pop culture depiction of an alien -- and a large brain size.

Researchers were unsure if the fossil was truly a different species or simply an unusual variant of Homo erectus.

Professor Meave Leakey enthuses, "For the past 40 years we have looked long and hard in the vast expanse of sediments around Lake Turkana for fossils that confirm the unique features of 1470's face and show us what its teeth and lower jaw would have looked like.  At last we have some answers."

Complete specimen
The stellar jaw specimen (bottom) fits perfectly on the restored KNM-ER 1470 skull (top).  
[Image Source: Fred Spoor]

The new finds left little doubt among researchers that KNM-ER 1470 was indeed a separate species, and as an added surprise, they also indicated that one of the two specimens dug up during the various excavations was a second relative.

Comments Fred Spoor who led the analysis of the specimens unearthed by the Leakey team, "Combined, the three new fossils give a much clearer picture of what 1470 looked like.  As a result, it is now clear that two species of early Homo lived alongside Homo erectus. The new fossils will greatly help in unraveling how our branch of human evolution first emerged and flourished almost two million years ago."

The KNM-ER 1470 look alike was found in 2008.  Dubbed KNM-ER 62000, the individual is thought to have lived between 1.78 million and 1.95 million years ago (placing it in the early Pleistocene era), according to isotopic dating techniques.  

Hominid Jaw
The semi-complete skull and upper jaw provided promising clues. [Image Source: Nature]

The find included a complete skull with most of the cheek teeth present in the well-preserved upper jaw, allowing researchers to infer the shape of the lower jaw.

Hominid jawHominid Jaw
The KNM-ER 60000 jaw was the best lower jaw specimen recovered to date. [Image Source: Nature]

The skull allowed a 2007 partial lower jaw discovered by Robert Moru, dubbed KNM-ER 62003, to be confirmed as a member of the new species.  Likewise, another jaw discovered in 2009 by Cyprian Nyete -- KNM-ER 60000 -- further enriched the picture.  The 60000 specimen was the most complete hominid lower jaw ever discovered by researchers to date.

III. Much Work Remains

The discovery was truly a breathtaking process, beginning with geological analysis of probable sites for preserved remains, funded by the Leakey Foundation.  With promising dig sites pinpointed, the National Geographic Society provided funding for the successful fieldwork, a half decade ago.  And the Max Plank Society also chipped in, funding the laboratory work on the unearthed fossils.

The finished paper [abstract] on the groundbreaking work was published in the prestigious peer-reviewed journal Nature.  Its authors include Christopher Kiarie (TBI), who carried out the laboratory preparation of the fossils, Craig Feibel (Rutgers University), who studied the age of the fossils, and Susan Antón (New York University), Christopher Dean (UCL, University College London), Meave and Louise Leakey (TBI, Kenya; and Stony Brook University, New York) and Fred Spoor (Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, Leipzig and UCL), who analyzed the fossils.

Leakeys
The Leakey ladies with their outstanding find. [Image Source: National Geographic]

While the terrific find solves many unanswered questions about hominid evolution, it raises yet others.  These species clearly have not survived to the present day, but it is unclear what their true fate is.

Recent sequencing of the Neanderthal genome revealed that humans surprisingly interbred with this co-existing species, allowing some of its genetic material to be preserved even after it was displaced by Homo sapiens and went extinct.  Likewise, these new hominids could have interbred with Homo erectus, contributing scraps of valuable DNA that helped create the creature that we today know as a "human".

There's much work to be done on the eve of this discovery.

Sources: Nature, National Geographic Society



Comments     Threshold


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

Precisely defined vagueness
By drycrust3 on 8/10/2012 3:05:29 AM , Rating: 4
quote:
Recent sequencing of the Neanderthal genome revealed that humans surprisingly interbred with this co-existing species, allowing some of its genetic material to be preserved even after it was displaced by Homo sapiens and went extinct.

With all this wealth of species genomes one would expect there to be some sort of measurement standard which defines whether or not two genomes are or are not of the same species, but this statement makes it obvious that no one can decide where to draw the line.
Looking at the fact that Neanderthal genes are in our genes, then it is obvious that they are the same species as us, but in this age of precise definition of standards we find loose and vague ideas define what is and isn't a species, not the degrees of similarity or difference of the genomes.




RE: Precisely defined vagueness
By mooty on 8/10/2012 7:40:25 AM , Rating: 4
Defining exact "boundaries" for species is mostly nonsense. Even trying to exactly define what a species is impossible. We mostly define species because it's easier to talk about thing that way, not because belonging to a species is an inherent property of a living being.

It is also nonsensical to try to pinpoint exact dates when one species evolved to another one. It's a gradual process, it's never one day a raptor, next day a chicken thing.
There are even a couple of species, sometimes called "ring species" that live on the globe that if you for example start from a certain population, and start to go west, the animals living close to each other are perfectly able to breed, however they are gradually changing, so much so that when you close the circle they are so different, that they normally would be called a different species.
And if you go down to the level of bacteria, the water becomes much-much murkier.

It is therefore pointless to define some kind of standard measurement that would tell you exactly if two species are different or not.


RE: Precisely defined vagueness
By MozeeToby on 8/10/2012 10:46:30 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
[...] this statement makes it obvious that no one can decide where to draw the line.
That's because there is no line. The idea of distinct species is a human concept, used to make the science of taxonomy possible, that does not mean it has any bearing on reality. That's what many creationists don't understand, that there are no dividing lines between species.

Think about it like this, you have two colors, one is definitely red and one is definitely orange. Now smear the spectrum between them and ask 1000 people where red becomes orange. You'll get 1000 different answers. Oh, they'll cluster around the same general area, but it's impossible to draw a line and say "this is the very last shade of red in the spectrum". And even if you did, you could zoom in and create a color between your hypothetical "last red" and "first orange" because (baring going into quantum physics) there's always going to be a color between the two.

More practically, there are species who cannot interbreed, but both can breed with a third species without any problem. Actually, there are "ring species" that are made up of half a dozen or more populations, each of which can breed with it's two neighbors and no others, but the breeding relationships form a complete circle. So, where do you draw the line?


RE: Precisely defined vagueness
By Ringold on 8/10/2012 3:22:53 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
That's because there is no line.


I can't be the only one that has certain people come to mind and think "this explains a lot, actually."

More seriously though, this has all been quietly noted in some realms of science for a long time, but political correctness strikes fear deep in to the hearts of researchers as it could, possibly, reopen bigoted debates on racism if genetic differences started reappearing in a more public debate.


RE: Precisely defined vagueness
By Argon18 on 8/10/2012 3:52:54 PM , Rating: 2
why would it "reopen bigoted debates on racism"? why couldn't it open intelligent constructive dialog on human race differences?


By Jackthegreen on 8/10/2012 8:21:53 PM , Rating: 2
I think you give people more credit than they deserve on this. There will be racist people who cling to the notion of the differences in human races meaning some of them are better than others and who will have a bit more to stand on if we start publicly going over more of the differences in detail. Thankfully those people are becoming fewer with each day, but it will probably take a while longer before those people are enough of a minority that they can't cause problems.


RE: Precisely defined vagueness
By Jeffk464 on 8/11/2012 3:20:33 PM , Rating: 1
reopen bigoted debates on racism if genetic differences started reappearing in a more public debate.

Uhm, there are genetic differences between red hair and brown hair, between brown eyes and green eyes, etc. Your genes created everything about you so how can they not play a role?


RE: Precisely defined vagueness
By Jeffk464 on 8/11/2012 3:21:38 PM , Rating: 3
You can't deny reality because it doesn't fit in with what you want to believe.


By foolsgambit11 on 8/11/2012 6:34:55 PM , Rating: 1
Tell that to the religious....


RE: Precisely defined vagueness
By MEZTEK on 8/13/2012 10:50:18 AM , Rating: 2
Your discussions of no or little genetic boundaries and that cross species breeding via a common third species is unheard of. This ring of species concept intrigues me. Now, that the other two HOMO species are gone, what can Humans breed with, APES? Are Apes within our ring? Is that possible? If Humans no longer have a breeding ring, then are we not a distinct and unique species?


RE: Precisely defined vagueness
By trumpeter001 on 8/12/2012 4:05:34 PM , Rating: 3
Everyone overcomplicates this much more than is necessary.

We have used Kingdom, Phylum, Class, Order, Family, Genus, and Species (KPCOFGS) to define life for years. Species is the end of the line. In order to differentiate life of the same genus, they are separated into species.

A Mastiff is a different species than a Great Dane, but they can still bread and share genetic code.

In the end it does not make a difference, it is all just a system to classify what we discover. It does not change who we are.


RE: Precisely defined vagueness
By Belard on 8/15/2012 5:26:42 AM , Rating: 2
Well said

To Drycrust3: Neanderthal of course, have been around longer than modern mankind. But they were not as advanced as humans, they never really evolved. While man came, killed them off and learned how to do so much more.

Yes, there was interbreeding between the two (who knows why. Animals will have sex with anything. bestiality, etc. Even a dolphin will attempt to mate with humans... not recommend to be swimming naked with! They are horny bastards) But of course, there would never be offspring from that!

The lighter/fair skin tone comes from the Neanderthal genetics (very little) when the last modern man left Africa and made their way to Europe.


Voyager
By vanionBB on 8/9/2012 3:04:46 PM , Rating: 2
I had no idea Kate Mulgrew (Kathryn Janeway) was an Archaeologist. I guess it makes sense, she knew everything about everything as Captain of the USS Voyager, she might as well be an Archaeologist too.




RE: Voyager
By kattanna on 8/9/2012 3:18:37 PM , Rating: 1
LOL.. yeah.. she does have that some butch look to her doesnt she


RE: Voyager
By Reclaimer77 on 8/9/2012 5:48:12 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah as a starship captain? I didn't see it. She should have done Murder She Wrote: The Next Generation


RE: Voyager
By Jeffk464 on 8/10/12, Rating: -1
RE: Voyager
By Manch on 8/10/2012 6:03:29 AM , Rating: 1
Bigots, stop. Just stop.


RE: Voyager
By macdevdude on 8/10/12, Rating: -1
RE: Voyager
By Jeffk464 on 8/11/2012 3:13:40 PM , Rating: 1
You know name calling just means you are out of arguments. Like the little kid who says oh yeah well your a poopoo head.


RE: Voyager
By Manch on 8/12/2012 4:51:35 PM , Rating: 2
Says the fuktard that in his very first post on this article attacks people of faith. Unbelievable...


RE: Voyager
By Belard on 8/15/2012 5:28:04 AM , Rating: 2
Where is the insult?


RE: Voyager
By othercents on 8/10/2012 10:10:13 AM , Rating: 1
There is no dispute the evolution happens, however the dispute has always been evolving between two distinctly different species (IE. fish to monkey). Also no one has proven where the spark of life came from. There are theories that don't stand up to the evidence. For example primordial soup theory would have some lingering chemicals that don't exist in our atmosphere besides the fact the chemicals required can't sustain life they actually have been proven to kill the life it creates.

BTW. Who says Adam and Eve were not more ape like and we have evolved from them?

Other


RE: Voyager
By morob05 on 8/10/2012 9:51:50 PM , Rating: 2
You're mixing together different theories and hypothesis. The theory of evolution does not concern itself with how life came into being. Abiogenesis is concerned with that and so far there are only different hypotheses, but no theories. Primordial soup is a hypothesis, NOT a theory!

By examining and comparing the genetics of different human populations around the globe we can trace our way back along the paternal lines of the family tree to what we call mitochondrial Adam and mitochondrial Eve. Those are the latest male and female that every human living today are related to. We can't give a very precise estimate though. Mitochondrial Adam lived between 140000 and 60000 years ago and mitochondrial Eve is older having lived about 200000 to 190000 years ago...


RE: Voyager
By Jeffk464 on 8/11/2012 3:14:59 PM , Rating: 2
Pretty sure they have a fossil record of transition animals moving from water to land.


RE: Voyager
By woody1 on 8/12/2012 2:40:42 PM , Rating: 2
Adam and Eve? What do they have to do with anything? You can't really talk about science if you mix in mythology. If you want to make claims that biblical myths have scientific validity, then you have to explain talking snakes and the concept that the planet is only about 6000 years old.

You also have to explain how all of the species on the planet were packed onto a hand-made boat.

No point in introducing Adam and Eve unless you're prepared to provide scientific explanations for everything in the Bible.


RE: Voyager
By ppardee on 8/14/2012 1:49:00 PM , Rating: 1
Speculation about data doesn't equal fact or evidence. Much of what people present as evidence for evolution has been disproved (sometimes for decades) and is still being taught as proof of evolution.

I'm not saying evolution didn't happen, but we certainly don't have proof that it did (or does). The reason it is accepted as fact by most people is that it's the best they can come up with (even the best wrong explanation is still wrong) and that's not how science works.


Guess what happened?
By Reclaimer77 on 8/9/2012 5:39:39 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
"Combined, the three new fossils give a much clearer picture of what 1470 looked like. As a result, it is now clear that two species of early Homo lived alongside Homo erectus. The new fossils will greatly help in unraveling how our branch of human evolution first emerged and flourished almost two million years ago."


So what happened to these other early Hominids that lived alongside Home erectus? I'm looking around, I don't see any.

Oh yeah, that's right, silly me..

WE KILLED THEM ALL OFF! That's how we roll! Suck it Neanderthal!! Suck it Homo Erectus!! Homo sapiens layeth the smacketh down, on your monkey candy asses!

(tired of the religious crap, let's see if this does the trick. I'm aware my timeline is all screwed up)




RE: Guess what happened?
By retrospooty on 8/9/12, Rating: -1
RE: Guess what happened?
By Reclaimer77 on 8/9/12, Rating: -1
RE: Guess what happened?
By ClownPuncher on 8/9/2012 7:17:09 PM , Rating: 2
Man... too busy at work at the moment. Be content with your Mao Headroom.


RE: Guess what happened?
By whitt107 on 8/10/2012 3:16:17 PM , Rating: 2
Noting on that they both interbred, I think I interpreted the 2nd half of your sentence entirely different then what you intended...


RE: Guess what happened?
By whitt107 on 8/10/2012 4:05:00 PM , Rating: 2
correction and clarification:
quote:
"WE KILLED THEM ALL OFF! That's how we roll! Suck it Neanderthal!! Suck it Homo Erectus!! "


Noting on that they both interbred, I think I interpreted the 2nd half of your sentence entirely different then what you intended...


RE: Guess what happened?
By foolsgambit11 on 8/11/2012 6:38:52 PM , Rating: 2
Also makes me wonder if early humans were actually hippies. "Make love, not war."


RE: Guess what happened?
By Schmide on 8/12/2012 2:00:37 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
WE KILLED THEM ALL OFF!


From what I've seen coming out of the Geneticists, Neanderthal DNA is present in modern humans.

So we didn't kill them but they did get fucked. (buh dum tuh)


RE: Guess what happened?
By Belard on 8/15/2012 5:32:26 AM , Rating: 2
Yep... but mixing of the genes is what makes for a better human:

http://www.dailytech.com/Neanderthal+Sex+Gave+Euro...

This also refers to race too.


Lies, its all LIES!
By eagle470 on 8/9/12, Rating: -1
RE: Lies, its all LIES!
By ATrigo on 8/9/2012 6:55:48 PM , Rating: 2
I would like to think that you're missing the <sarcasm/> tag somewhere :)


RE: Lies, its all LIES!
By Belard on 8/15/2012 5:35:30 AM , Rating: 2
After all, computers, TVs, air-craft, cars, phone are all magical devices that appear out of thin air!


Lying Bones
By macdevdude on 8/9/12, Rating: -1
RE: Lying Bones
By johnnycanadian on 8/9/2012 3:41:57 PM , Rating: 5
"And don't be convinced by some circus show in Africa."

As opposed to being deceived by mythology -- for which there is absolutely zero proof.


RE: Lying Bones
By talikarni on 8/9/12, Rating: -1
RE: Lying Bones
By eggman on 8/9/2012 4:10:23 PM , Rating: 5
"written by real people" with an agenda no doubt


RE: Lying Bones
By Hexus on 8/9/2012 4:26:20 PM , Rating: 5
You obviously have no idea what THEORY means in the scientific world.

I can touch a copy of Harry Potter. Which was written by real people. Doesn't mean it's real. You're logic is flawed friend.


RE: Lying Bones
By waykizool on 8/9/2012 4:28:14 PM , Rating: 3
You keep using that word, but I don't think you know what it means.

Theory - In modern science, the term "theory" refers to scientific theories, a well-confirmed type of explanation of nature, made in a way consistent with scientific method, and fulfilling the criteria required by modern science.

Hypothesis - People refer to a trial solution to a problem as a hypothesis, often called an "educated guess" because it provides a suggested solution based on the evidence.

And we're not talking thousands of years, this is hundreds of thousands to millions of years.

Try keeping an open mind to things as well, the Bible says God created man, but keep in mind, it doesn't say HOW.


RE: Lying Bones
By morob05 on 8/9/2012 9:38:27 PM , Rating: 3
LOL, it does say how. He shaped adam out of dirt and blew into his nostrils the breath of life! Then he stole one of adams ribs while he was sleeping and created Eve.


RE: Lying Bones
By maugrimtr on 8/10/2012 8:22:58 AM , Rating: 5
And after witnessing Man write that down, He erupted in laughter, shook his head, and moved out a few light years to check on other random planets showing evidence of sentient life that might not be so ridiculously gullible.


RE: Lying Bones
By ppardee on 8/14/2012 2:09:54 PM , Rating: 2
First, the quote is "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."

Hypothesis is an educated guess.

Theory is a hypothesis that has withstood repeated testing and has been accepted by a consensus (lots of people say.. yeah, sounds reasonable to me!) but can still be disproved.

Law is a theory to which no exceptions have been found.

Evolution is a theory by virtue of people coming to a consensus, not by testing. It has never been tested to my knowledge. Never once have we observed significant changes in an organism that would constitute anything other than adaptation. Evolution requires new genetic info to be injected into an organism - easy for prokaryotes, not so much for eukaryotes - or mutation of existing genes, which is harmful in all observations I'm aware of.


RE: Lying Bones
By morob05 on 8/14/2012 8:52:38 PM , Rating: 2
I'm sorry dude, but you don't understand. A law is by no means a theory to which no exceptions has been found. Law and theory are 2 entirely different things all together. A law does NOT attempt to explain any phenomena at all. The purpose of a theory on the other hand is to provide an explanation for natural phenomena. A theory is the closest thing you will get to fact within science.

Scientific hypothesis:
A hypothesis is a proposed explanation for a phenomenon. For a hypothesis to be a scientific hypothesis, the scientific method requires that one can test it. Scientists generally base scientific hypotheses on previous observations that cannot satisfactorily be explained with the available scientific theories.

Scientific theory:
A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Scientists create scientific theories from hypotheses that have been corroborated through the scientific method, then gather evidence to test their accuracy.

Scientific law:
A scientific law is a statement based on repeated experimental observation that describes some aspect of the world. A scientific law always applies under the same conditions, and implies that there is a causal relationship involving its elements.
Laws differ from scientific theories in that they do not posit a mechanism or explanation of phenomena: they are merely distillations of the results of repeated observation.

Evolution has in fact been confirmed through experimentation and observation, time and time again. It would NOT be a theory if it hadn't! Evolution does NOT require new genetic information to be injected into an organism. That's an insane notion... New genetic information arises through the re-arrangement of existing genetic information and through mutations. Mutations are NOT all harmful, many beneficial mutations has been observed, both within the general populations of humans and animals and also in lab-experiments. Evolution IS adaptation. If you believe that different organisms adapt to different environments, then i'd pretty much say that you believe in evolution. For whatever weird reason you just don't like to call it evolution.


RE: Lying Bones
By ClownPuncher on 8/9/2012 4:28:55 PM , Rating: 2
Good troll.


RE: Lying Bones
By GmTrix on 8/10/2012 9:18:06 AM , Rating: 2
Any time someone uses the word "kiddo" I can feel my blood start to boil. Even when I know its a troll.


RE: Lying Bones
By FormulaRedline on 8/9/2012 4:35:40 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
There is no way over a few thousand years that man or anything can be turned from money to human

I'd agree. It would be awfully hard to turn money into humans. But, in the last few thousand years, religion has proven a good way for it's leaders to turn people into money.


RE: Lying Bones
By retrospooty on 8/9/2012 4:38:19 PM , Rating: 2
"Remember, evolution is still a THEORY..."

Sorry, no. There is mountains of evidence from our own DNA, to Geologic, to archeological evidence. The whole thing has been mapped out, we have fossils that show our gradual evolution from Ape to man.

We evolved from microscopic organisms on this 4.5 billion year old planet... Live with it.


RE: Lying Bones
By Flunk on 8/9/2012 4:44:30 PM , Rating: 5
No, no, he's definitely right. It's a theory, like gravity. That's why creationists always strap themselves to the bed at night so that they don't fly away.


RE: Lying Bones
By retrospooty on 8/9/2012 4:51:36 PM , Rating: 3
I think he may have had too much of the theory of relativity in his gene pool and the resulting inbreeding has affected his ability to think clearly and evaluate reality.


RE: Lying Bones
By ShaolinSoccer on 8/9/12, Rating: -1
RE: Lying Bones
By retrospooty on 8/9/2012 7:44:25 PM , Rating: 5
There is nothing wrong with accepting god, or the possibility of a god. - That is called faith.

There is something seriously wrong with denying the overwhelming mountain of genetic, fossil, and archaeological evidence that proves we evolved. - That is called complete denial.


RE: Lying Bones
By Belard on 8/15/2012 5:51:18 AM , Rating: 1
But you see, now you're really just putting crap out of thin air. Now God has to be born from something or some one. So who is the real God? First if God created everything, then he cannot have been born. Otherwise what made him/her/it?

Its all kind of silly, after all - do you believe the Easter Bunny is any less real or not as "God"?

Maybe if we had creators, they were Aliens from outer space, needing some slave labor or science experiment. WE do such things our selves (power of the Gods)... which would then mean, God is not a God - just some guy playing with some cells in a laboratory... and he's been dead for a very long time.

Who knows? Lets saw all humans vanished tomorrow. It would take only a few thousand years to get rid of most proof of our existence. Give it 100,000+ years, unless theres bones - everything crumbles to dust.

Afterall, the OIL we drill up and eventually burn off in our case is exactly that. Very OLD nasty carbon is made from trees and animals from millions of years ago. Nothing more. Let a human being rot in a jar- the meat turns black and oily, eventually turning into goo.


RE: Lying Bones
By AntiM on 8/9/2012 5:02:49 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
There is more proof of events from the Bible than there is of evolution... try again kiddo.


The study of genetics alone has provided ample evidence for evolution, not to mention the fossil record.

There is no evidence that Moses ever existed. There is no definitive agreement by biblical scholars as to who wrote the various books of the Bible, only that is was written by various people. If anyone can provide any scrap of evidence that Jesus even existed, I would happily give it serious consideration. However, not second and third hand accounts from people that lived decades after his supposed death.
I don't seek to insult or ridicule, I only seek the truth. If you actually knew anything about evolution, you would know that it doesn't claim that humans came from monkeys, only that we have a common ancestor hundreds of thousands of years in the distant past.
I honestly think the debate is over.


RE: Lying Bones
By amosbatto on 8/10/2012 10:14:23 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
If anyone can provide any scrap of evidence that Jesus even existed, I would happily give it serious consideration. However, not second and third hand accounts from people that lived decades after his supposed death.

I remember reading some biblical scholar who commented that all the contemporary Roman writers seemed to accept that there was a man named Jesus; instead, they argued that the resurrection never happened. From that he concluded that we can be reasonable sure that there was a man named Jesus.


RE: Lying Bones
By morob05 on 8/9/2012 11:47:39 PM , Rating: 5
When will you creationists learn the difference between scientific hypothesis, scientific theory and scientific law? It's painfully agonizing to constantly watch you fucking around the scientific terminology, without having the slightest clue on what the definitions of the terminology are! A simple search on wikipedia would clarify much for you:

Scientific hypothesis:
A hypothesis is a proposed explanation for a phenomenon. For a hypothesis to be a scientific hypothesis, the scientific method requires that one can test it. Scientists generally base scientific hypotheses on previous observations that cannot satisfactorily be explained with the available scientific theories.

Scientific theory:
A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Scientists create scientific theories from hypotheses that have been corroborated through the scientific method, then gather evidence to test their accuracy.

Scientific law:
A scientific law is a statement based on repeated experimental observation that describes some aspect of the world. A scientific law always applies under the same conditions, and implies that there is a causal relationship involving its elements.
Laws differ from scientific theories in that they do not posit a mechanism or explanation of phenomena: they are merely distillations of the results of repeated observation.


RE: Lying Bones
By MozeeToby on 8/10/2012 12:48:18 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, no matter how often it is pointed out, they will never understand that, in many ways, a theory is more profoundly impressive than a law. After all, both have similar levels of evidence supporting them, but a theory says so, so much more.

Law of gravity: Things are attracted to other things!
Theory of gravity: Mass warps space-time, when we see an object fall in a graceful curve to the ground, you're actually seeing that object travel through a straight line in 4 dimensional space!

Which is a more impressive statement?


RE: Lying Bones
By senecarr on 8/10/2012 8:21:57 AM , Rating: 2
How can the Bible provide proof when it contradicts itself? Genesis starts off by telling two different stories of creation that have conflicts. Obviously by process of elimination, the Bible has to disprove parts of itself.


RE: Lying Bones
By topkill on 8/10/2012 9:53:49 AM , Rating: 2
ROFL Look dude, if you want to believe the Bible, then you go for it and I hope it brings you peace, joy and happiness (as long as you're not using it as an excuse to kill/hate other people as some are prone to do).

But if you want to talk proof, real people writing things down is about as silly of a statement as I've ever heard. Real people have written down pretty much every religion on the planet by now. What exactly do you think that has to do with anything?

Seriously, I'm curious....what do you really think that proves? As has been pointed out: Does that make Harry Potter real?

Have you ever heard of Gilgamesh?


RE: Lying Bones
By retrospooty on 8/10/2012 10:04:36 AM , Rating: 2
"Have you ever heard of Gilgamesh?"

Ah yes, aka Jesus rev 1.

The bible Jesus is actually rev 2 as its a near exact duplicate of the earlier Babylonian story.


RE: Lying Bones
By MozeeToby on 8/10/2012 12:51:26 PM , Rating: 2
I think if you look at history, you'll find the basic story of Jesus (son of a god, killed for claiming such, rises from the dead some days later) repeated more than twice. Closer to two dozen in fact.


RE: Lying Bones
By Reclaimer77 on 8/10/2012 10:36:06 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Have you ever heard of Gilgamesh?


Hundreds of years from now, Starship captains still tell his tale..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QoM_kPGfkw0


RE: Lying Bones
By retrospooty on 8/10/2012 12:35:43 PM , Rating: 2
LOL... I remeber that one. Darmok and Gilad at Tanagra. A great introspective episode. Picard was awesome.


RE: Lying Bones
By Reclaimer77 on 8/10/2012 4:35:55 PM , Rating: 2
Shaka...when the walls fell.


RE: Lying Bones
By retrospooty on 8/10/2012 5:18:15 PM , Rating: 2
Sokath, his eyes uncovered


RE: Lying Bones
By topkill on 8/14/2012 9:27:18 AM , Rating: 2
Oh, that was a great one! I forgot all about that :-)


RE: Lying Bones
By Jeffk464 on 8/10/2012 12:50:55 AM , Rating: 3
How is it that there are home schooled, science denying, bible thumpers on a tech site?


RE: Lying Bones
By morob05 on 8/10/2012 1:11:14 AM , Rating: 2
I myself have been struggling with figuring that out... My best guess is that they mainly come here to troll!


RE: Lying Bones
By Manch on 8/10/2012 6:34:04 AM , Rating: 2
Because acting like a religious zealot, he's trolling to get all of you "Free Thinkers" riled up so you'll start attacking people of faith.


RE: Lying Bones
By Argon18 on 8/10/12, Rating: -1
RE: Lying Bones
By retrospooty on 8/9/2012 4:34:39 PM , Rating: 1
"Yea, like why is evolutionary theory so weak and full of holes."

/facepalm


RE: Lying Bones
By Reclaimer77 on 8/9/2012 5:09:34 PM , Rating: 2
Isn't this the kid who claimed Mac users are smarter, more educated, bla bla bla, then he posts THIS?


RE: Lying Bones
By retrospooty on 8/9/2012 5:10:34 PM , Rating: 2
Yup... The lobotomy scar must still be showing.


RE: Lying Bones
By Sazabi19 on 8/10/2012 8:19:52 AM , Rating: 2
Hey Reclaimer, in all fairness we have been trying to get him out of JUST Apple threads for months and stop trolling them. In his defense he has done just that... accept now he is trolling other threads, we should just bottle him back up in his Apple threads again. Let's not encourage the cancer to spread eh?


RE: Lying Bones
By 3minence on 8/9/2012 4:40:19 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
like why is evolutionary theory so weak and full of holes

And creationism is just swimming in proof?
quote:
if you believe notoriously inaccurate carbon dating

Actually, carbon dating is only accurate up to about (roughly) 50k years. For anything over that they have to switch to using Uranium dating. And yes, its terribly inaccurate. Look at how all those atomic clocks which are based on the same theory are horribly inaccurate.

I take comfort in the knowledge that this silly belief in creationism will fade into the past just like the earth centered universe did.


RE: Lying Bones
By Flunk on 8/9/2012 4:40:29 PM , Rating: 2
Fail troll, I refuse to believe that anyone is really that stupid.


RE: Lying Bones
By retrospooty on 8/9/2012 4:41:31 PM , Rating: 3
Think again... Sadly, alot of people are that stupid. Some are even stupider.


RE: Lying Bones
By macdevdude on 8/10/12, Rating: -1
RE: Lying Bones
By 3minence on 8/10/2012 2:27:09 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Probably a Windows user.


Dude, awesome joke. You actually had me going, thinking you were serious, until you connected windows user with non-believers. Not even the most radical christian zealot would associate the two, unless, of course, he was a blithering idiot. I'm surprised you can even manage to type this stuff cause you must be laughing so hysterically.

Thanks for the comedy relief, I needed it!


RE: Lying Bones
By macdevdude on 8/10/12, Rating: -1
RE: Lying Bones
By morob05 on 8/10/2012 10:07:26 PM , Rating: 2
I find it hilarious that you're just about equally fundamentally religious regarding actual religion and choice of computer and operating system xD You're quite the extremist :P


RE: Lying Bones
By Reclaimer77 on 8/10/2012 10:23:09 PM , Rating: 2
Did you and Testerguy escape from some kind of mental health facility? I've never before seen two people who were so full of themselves, while being SO wrong and idiotic before. You guys have extremely toxic narcissism. How you view yourselves is not even close to being accurate.


RE: Lying Bones
By morob05 on 8/11/2012 12:04:16 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Did you and Testerguy escape from some kind of mental health facility?


Amongst other things you believe in talking snakes, a man living inside a whale, an arc large enough to contain two specimens of all of the millions of species that we see on earth today. Since you take the bible quite literal you probably believe that the universe is only around 6000 years old, despite the fact that we can look out in the universe and see objects as far away as 13,6 billion lightyears.

Yet you have the audacity to ask if i escaped from a mental health facility?!?

quote:
I've never before seen two people who were so full of themselves, while being SO wrong and idiotic before.


Exactly where was i being full of myself?

quote:
You guys have extremely toxic narcissism.


I'm not the one setting out bold claims that i'm way more intelligent than everyone else because i use a mac and pray to christ!

quote:
How you view yourselves is not even close to being accurate.


Lol dude, you're incredible!


RE: Lying Bones
By Reclaimer77 on 8/11/2012 1:48:48 AM , Rating: 2
Who the hell are you talking about? I don't believe in ANY of those things! Hello?

quote:
I'm not the one setting out bold claims that i'm way more intelligent than everyone else because i use a mac and pray to christ!


Okay now I KNOW you have me confused with someone else. Better check who's posting what, and try again.


RE: Lying Bones
By morob05 on 8/11/2012 2:30:44 AM , Rating: 2
Lol, sorry dude.

Was a little quick to jump the gun there... Saw it as a reply to my comment and thought it was macdevdude...


RE: Lying Bones
By Cheesew1z69 on 8/11/2012 3:05:14 PM , Rating: 1
None of those are actual "facts"...LOL

You really are a mental nut job.


RE: Lying Bones
By Cheesew1z69 on 8/9/2012 6:26:18 PM , Rating: 1
You really are the most stupid motherfucker on this site... this post seals the deal...

My lord....


RE: Lying Bones
By Cheesew1z69 on 8/9/2012 6:27:47 PM , Rating: 2
I post and I am automatically at 0? What in the hell?


RE: Lying Bones
By Reclaimer77 on 8/9/2012 6:36:29 PM , Rating: 2
You responded to someone with a -1, giving you a 1. You then cursed, which brought you to a 0.

But it's okay, because I agree with you!


RE: Lying Bones
By Cheesew1z69 on 8/9/2012 6:51:46 PM , Rating: 2
:D


RE: Lying Bones
By ATrigo on 8/9/2012 7:05:59 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
The devil, is a powerful decepter to those who accept him.


Apple, perhaps?


RE: Lying Bones
By macdevdude on 8/10/12, Rating: -1
RE: Lying Bones
By retrospooty on 8/10/2012 2:28:16 PM , Rating: 2
"while schmucks like you are unemployed and broke.

Apple fanboy - Deluded.
Bible thumper - Gullible, ignorant and uneducated.

Now we can add total douchebag to your list of qualities. Keep going, your quite the impressive human being. It just goes to show us all, that some of us have not evolved as far as others. LEt me break that down so you can get it... You are still only a slight bit smarter than an ape.


RE: Lying Bones
By macdevdude on 8/10/12, Rating: -1
RE: Lying Bones
By retrospooty on 8/10/2012 4:33:20 PM , Rating: 2
"Let me ask you this. Since no one challenged the initial idea that bones are probably fake, i'll ask it again -- how can you tell that the researchers didn't just conspire to make clever fakes"

I hate to break this to you, but these arent the only bones that have been found. They have found thousands of them, all over africa, and Homo Erectus all over the world. They have every step of the way that your ancestors took from ape to man. We have DNA evidence that backs it up, we have geologic evidence that backs it up, we have archaeological evidence that backs it up and we have even seen it happening with bacteria, and even our own skin color. It's proven. It's not even up for debate anymore.

I really hope you are joking with this. IF not, its sad how ignorant you are.


RE: Lying Bones
By morob05 on 8/11/2012 1:12:13 AM , Rating: 2
Your logic is so weird...
quote:
"Through wisdom a house is built, and by understanding it is established; and by knowledge the rooms shall be filled with all precious and pleasant riches." Proverbs 24:3-4

Fact:
Apple is very rich, thus it must be very wise.

Fact:
Microsoft is even richer than apple so they must be even wiser...?


RE: Lying Bones
By BugblatterIII on 8/9/2012 8:20:52 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
These species clearly have not survived to the present day, but it is unclear what their true fate is

Found one!


RE: Lying Bones
By JKflipflop98 on 8/9/2012 9:11:00 PM , Rating: 1
LOL the troll is knocking them out of the park!!!

macdevdude has posted a total of 64 comments at DailyTech, the average comment rating was -0.89.


RE: Lying Bones
By morob05 on 8/10/2012 1:20:01 AM , Rating: 2
Lol, he's been exerting himself :P


RE: Lying Bones
By sorry dog on 8/10/2012 7:02:55 PM , Rating: 1
-0.89 ??!!

Wow, that is awesome!

That is pure talent right there...

That's like 95% of his posts are crapped on.

You can't teach somebody how to get downrated that much...you gotta be born with that ability.


RE: Lying Bones
By retrospooty on 8/10/2012 7:41:12 PM , Rating: 2
LOL... not really though. If you say something asinine and insulting in pretty much every single post like Macdevdude, you will get there pretty quick.


RE: Lying Bones
By sorry dog on 8/10/2012 7:08:34 PM , Rating: 1
-0.89 ??!!

Wow, that is awesome!

That is pure talent right there...

That's like 95% of his posts are crapped on.

You can't teach somebody how to get downrated that much...you gotta be born with that ability.


RE: Lying Bones
By sorry dog on 8/10/2012 7:46:31 PM , Rating: 1
-0.89 ??!!

Wow, that is awesome!

That is pure talent right there...

That's like 95% of his posts are crapped on.

You can't teach somebody how to get downrated that much...you gotta be born with that ability.


RE: Lying Bones
By sorry dog on 8/10/2012 7:59:03 PM , Rating: 2
It is just me OK has DT's site been unstable lately... It hung for 10 min and then caused a triple post...sorry


RE: Lying Bones
By Jeffk464 on 8/10/2012 12:49:29 AM , Rating: 1
Wow, you will believe any absurd story just so your belief in the bible doesn't get shaken.


RE: Lying Bones
By LRonaldHubbs on 8/10/2012 10:36:49 AM , Rating: 3
Wow, finally someone who can give Quadrility a run for his money. I'm impressed!


RE: Lying Bones
By dtfernando on 8/12/2012 11:51:27 PM , Rating: 3
People have to accept that both creation and evolution are both right and both wrong at the same time. A near- or perfectly omnipotent and omniscient god(s) cannot possibly be understood by humans even if humans evolve into new forms over billions of years. It's like asking ants to contemplate the raison d'etre behind elephants and their behind.

It is just that the grade-school level of religion creators (remember, all those uneducated prophets of the Asian-Arabian religions that dominate today's societies won't pass the serious mental and educational achievement tests today) want to come up with family-like gods, when these gods are probably not that interested in humans who are only as good as bacteria or viruses to them.

There really is a grand design despite the claims of evolutionists. No advanced science school today can even come up with hypotheses or theories as to why zero-energy mass or zero-mass energy in all their spectrum of forms have to self-organize to form living things. A rock gains nothing and wastes everything by becoming human or some other living thing. It is even generally accepted today that all energy will eventually die in this universe unless there are god-level interventions. If subatomic activities must eventually die, there would be no explainable purpose for organizing it into life forms.

Worse, there are pro-British nationalists today who still crow that Darwin's "evolution" "theories" work!!! How can a mere tourist like Darwin even and ever be able to comprehend the extreme sophistication and levels of "evolution" as it is already known today? This is exactly the same as allowing a stone-ager to say one million years ago that energy and matter are interchangeable forms even if he has zero knowledge of advanced physics to deduce that belief.

It's just that stupid creationists and stupid evolutionists want to destroy each other's opinions -- if not each other physically. The ideas behind creationism is extremely primitive, and the ideas behind evolutionism is as primitive as that (evolutionists just pretend better and have greater mass media mileage). This universe did not exist to humor these two ignorant streams of thought, and that is a great comfort to the vast majority of us who do not have to be in the ship of fools with their pet gods and apes.


RE: Lying Bones
By gladiatorua on 8/12/12, Rating: 0
Lies, its all LIES!
By eagle470 on 8/9/12, Rating: -1
“Then they pop up and say ‘Hello, surprise! Give us your money or we will shut you down!' Screw them. Seriously, screw them. You can quote me on that.” -- Newegg Chief Legal Officer Lee Cheng referencing patent trolls














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki