backtop


Print 79 comment(s) - last by BillyBatson.. on Jan 3 at 4:04 PM

Adversity breeds strength -- and perhaps human intelligence

It's a widely held hypothesis that ecological and climatological changes had a crucial driving role in evolution throughout history.  Now Penn State University geoscience professor Katherine Freeman and her graduate student, Clayton Magill, have put forth an intriguing study, which suggests that chaos in the ecosystem of East Africa drove mankind's ancestors to radically evolve 2 million years ago.

I. Life on the Chaotic Savanna

Mr. Magill comments, "The landscape early humans were inhabiting transitioned rapidly back and forth between a closed woodland and an open grassland about five to six times during a period of 200,000 years.  These changes happened very abruptly, with each transition occurring over hundreds to just a few thousand years."

To examine the ecological transition that coincided with this crucial phase of hominid evolution the researchers traveled to the Olduvai Gorge in northern Tanzania, collecting lake sediments.  Filtering the sediments of different ages, they performed biochemical analysis looking for fossilized chemical traces of grasses and trees.

Specifically, they sifted through sediments looking for leaf waxes, hardy biochemicals that tend to resist breakdown and survive, even over millions of years.  By performing gas chromatography and mass spectrometry analyses on the various waxes, the researchers were able to pinpoint both the foliage and composition to within a couple centuries.

Tanzania Gorge
Biochemical analysis of local sediments in a Tanzania gorge have offered key clues as to the evolutionary path of mankind's hominid ancestors. [Image Source: Gail Ashley]

What they discovered was that the "Great Drying", which is widely proven to have occurred in Africa around 3 million years ago, was not as much of a one-way process as was previously thought.  Rather, the sediments showed that the local ecosystem appears to have gone through a chaotic transition period in which the climate would fluctuate between wet and dry, before eventually gravitating fully to drier savanna.

To better understand the source of such strange and chaotic cycling, the researchers used statistical and mathematical models to formulate a hypothesis on the causes.  

Explains Professor Freeman, "The orbit of the Earth around the sun slowly changes with time.  These changes were tied to the local climate at Olduvai Gorge through changes in the monsoon system in Africa. Slight changes in the amount of sunshine changed the intensity of atmospheric circulation and the supply of water. The rain patterns that drive the plant patterns follow this monsoon circulation."

"We found a correlation between changes in the environment and planetary movement.  We find complementary forcing mechanisms: one is the way Earth orbits, and the other is variation in ocean temperatures surrounding Africa."

II. Adversity Breeds Evolved Intelligence

The chaos would obviously cause great stress on hominids living in the region forcing them to adapt to different food sources, different landscape, and different predators.  Mr. Magill and Professor Freeman suggest this was a key driver of the evolution of human intelligence.

Comments Mr. Magill, "Early humans went from having trees available to having only grasses available in just 10 to 100 generations, and their diets would have had to change in response.  Changes in food availability, food type, or the way you get food can trigger evolutionary mechanisms to deal with those changes." 

"The result can be increased brain size and cognition, changes in locomotion and even social changes -- how you interact with others in a group. Our data are consistent with these hypotheses. We show that the environment changed dramatically over a short time, and this variability coincides with an important period in our human evolution when the genus Homo was first established and when there was first evidence of tool use."

human intelligence
The papers suggest chaotic climate changes triggered the rise of human intelligence.
[Image Source: Pace J. Miller]

The research was published as a pair of papers [abstracts] in the prestigious peer-reviewed journal The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS).  Among the other researchers working on the team was Rutgers University earth and planetary sciences professor Gail Ashley.  The research was funded by a National Science Foundation (NSF) grant.

Sources: PNAS [1], [2]



Comments     Threshold


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

Interesting new research paper
By wgbutler on 12/31/2012 9:51:05 AM , Rating: 2
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21987416

that I discovered by reading one of my usual blogs:

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/12/our_top_10_ev...

IMHO, any fanciful speculation about what could cause an ape like ancestor to morph into a human is irrelevant until the Levinthal Paradox can be adequately resolved.

People who are theologically invested in the idea of apes turning into humans (or not) are fighting the wrong battle. God could easily create human beings by transforming existing animals if that's what God wants to do. To really discredit the idea of a God being involved in biology you have to come up with a plausible pathway for the origin of proteins, DNA, and a cell interactome out of non-living components.




RE: Interesting new research paper
By drycrust3 on 12/31/2012 10:48:58 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
God could easily create human beings by transforming existing animals if that's what God wants to do.

As I recall, God went one step further and created man from the mud, and did it in less than a day.


RE: Interesting new research paper
By wgbutler on 12/31/2012 11:13:10 AM , Rating: 2
quote:

As I recall, God went one step further and created man from the mud, and did it in less than a day.


I believe the exact quote is that God "formed the man from the dust of the earth". This is relatively non-controversial as even the most die hard atheist would say that life is made up of molecules that come from the Earth.

The interpretation of day is open for speculation as well as Psalms 90:4 says that a 1000 years is like a single day to God.

There's no reason why Genesis 1 can't be read as a general narrative of the appearance of life on Earth, even conceding that neo-Darwinism is completely true.

Neo-Darwinism doesn't really weaken the case for Judeo-Christian theism at all. In order to kick God out of biology you would have to present a plausible, testable, reproducible pathway for the problems I mentioned above.


RE: Interesting new research paper
By Piiman on 12/31/2012 4:37:55 PM , Rating: 2
"Neo-Darwinism doesn't really weaken the case for Judeo-Christian theism at all. In order to kick God out of biology you would have to present a plausible, testable, reproducible pathway for the problems I mentioned above. "

First you supply a plausible, testable, reproducible pathway that God is real? And No a book written by men isn't proof.


RE: Interesting new research paper
By wgbutler on 12/31/2012 4:45:52 PM , Rating: 2
You're changing the subject. You are the one trying to get me to think that chemicals can become alive and that no intelligent agent is necessary.

OK, so I'm listening. Give me a plausible, testable pathway to think that this is true.


RE: Interesting new research paper
By Paj on 1/2/2013 6:05:10 AM , Rating: 2
Can you supply one that conclusively proves there is no God, Yahweh, flying spaghetti monster, higher power?

In my view, atheism and theism share similar logical fallacies. We cannot conclusively prove either one is true.

The account of creation as given in the Bible is another matter - thats pretty much been blown out of the water.


By wgbutler on 1/2/2013 6:45:14 PM , Rating: 2
quote:

In my view, atheism and theism share similar logical fallacies. We cannot conclusively prove either one is true.


True. But you can look at the claims of both and see which has the best explanatory power given the reality that we live in.

Atheism claims that everything came from nothing, that all the fine tuning of the Universe and design of biology is due to blind chance, life came from non-life, and consciousness came from non-consciousness. I think these claims have about as much credibility as religions that say that the world was hatched out of a giant egg.

Theism, on the other hand, states that a powerful Intelligence created and designed the universe, and life, which fits all of the data that we are able to scientifically ascertain since we know that the Universe has not always been here, that it is fine tuned, and we have no way to create life from scratch out of non-living components. Between the two hypothesis, theism has far greater explanatory power.

I guess you could say that other options could be true (i.e. we are really in a computer simulation) but philosophically you still have to deal with the issue of origins and morality.

quote:

The account of creation as given in the Bible is another matter - thats pretty much been blown out of the water.


Actually, the account of creation is quite remarkable, especially given that it was written thousands of years ago in a world dominated by pagan beliefs. Think about it for a minute:

1) It claims that the Universe had a beginning, something even scientists did not finally believe until the twentieth century.
2) It claims that the sun, moon, earth, and stars are not divine beings that should be worshiped but are simply created objects - quite a heretical claim given the time that it was written!
3) It claims that light was the first distinct thing in existence, which we know to be true as light first came out of matter 380,000 years after the big bang.
4) It outlines a general history of life on Earth, culminating with the appearance of mammals and finally mankind, something the fossil record validates.

Regarding the days and creation week, this is easily explained that the timeframes being used are from God's point of view, which is really the only logical explanation as the sun didn't even exist until the 4th day of creation. And we know that time is relative and passes differently depending on where you are in the Universe. Why would it be so hard to think that what passes for a day in the realm of an eternal Being would be billions of years for someone standing on Earth?


RE: Interesting new research paper
By BillyBatson on 1/2/2013 5:55:17 PM , Rating: 2
Whether evolution is real or not and whether we come from apes or not to some of us doesn't change the fact that some of us don't believe in a god no matter what. Humans naturally need to believe in something greater than ourselves, it also brings us great comfort to think this isn't the only life we get and that we will be with lost loved ones in the future. Basically we made up fairy tale bedtimes stories rather than face the truth of our finite mortality.
The majority of the world still likes to live in fantasy denial.


RE: Interesting new research paper
By wgbutler on 1/2/2013 6:24:44 PM , Rating: 2
quote:

Humans naturally need to believe in something greater than ourselves, it also brings us great comfort to think this isn't the only life we get and that we will be with lost loved ones in the future


Of course people believe in God for those types of reasons. And other people refuse to believe in God because it makes them extremely uncomfortable to think that they are ultimately accountable for their behavior.

I agree that emotions aren't a good basis for believing or disbelieving in God. The fact that some people may base their beliefs on emotion doesn't meant that the worldview in inherently incorrect, one way or the other.


RE: Interesting new research paper
By wgbutler on 1/2/2013 6:28:17 PM , Rating: 2
One more thing. If I were to choose my beliefs based solely on emotion I'd pick a belief system that saved me from universal scorn and derision, one that the majority of people around the world thought was "cool", and one that let me live my life however I wanted with no bad consequences of any kind.

In other words, Christianity would be the last thing I would pick. I'd probably be just like most of the people who comment on this blog.


By BillyBatson on 1/3/2013 4:04:03 PM , Rating: 2
Agreed that just because emotions are involved doesn't mean that those views are incorrect.

I also understand that Christianity would be the last religion people pick if it was created today... But when Christianity first started it was nearly nothing like the religion and church is today but people have already bought into it and every generation born into it is more likely to blindly follow that faith.


RE: Interesting new research paper
By Piiman on 12/31/2012 4:04:50 PM , Rating: 2
"To really discredit the idea of a God being involved in biology you have to come up with a plausible pathway for the origin of proteins, DNA, and a cell interactome out of non-living components. "
NO all you have to do is realize God isn't real. And we didn't come from Apes we were ape like but always human.


RE: Interesting new research paper
By wgbutler on 12/31/2012 4:43:31 PM , Rating: 2
quote:

NO all you have to do is realize God isn't real. And we didn't come from Apes we were ape like but always human.


Why should I realize that God isn't real? Give me some arguments.

In place of God, I should think what, everything came from nothing, the Universe was always here, or something else? Give me some good reasons why I should think that everything came from nothing or was always here instead of God creating the Universe and life.


I don't think so...
By zodiacfml on 12/28/2012 10:59:12 AM , Rating: 3
This doesn't tell why humans got accelerated so much from the primates or mammals.




RE: I don't think so...
By retrospooty on 12/28/2012 11:44:19 AM , Rating: 2
We already know that piece of the puzzle.


RE: I don't think so...
By Mitch101 on 12/28/2012 3:08:07 PM , Rating: 1
Something is missing for me or maybe it’s just Darwinism. Maybe someone can explain it because I have a hard time believing we evolved from apes despite our similarities. If we did then early humans had to have the ability to mate with apes to produce more humans which Im not sure was possible once DNA makes a radical shift. If we didn’t mate with apes then the jump that evolution requires also requires it happened twice and at the same time to make both a man and woman because were not asexual and self-reproducing. And this would have had to occur for nearly every species on the planet a jump in DNA and the production of both a male and female so the species can reproduce. Shouldn’t we be able to find these missing links not just for ourselves but for any other species? And how does it happen that both a male and female are produced so the species lives on and reproduces?


RE: I don't think so...
By retrospooty on 12/28/2012 3:41:25 PM , Rating: 1
What missing links? There are fossils found and dated that document every step of the way from a chip-like ape to modern human. There is no missing link. IT really biols down to this. the smarter ones were better at surviving, therefore thier genes reproduced more. Over time, the species as a whole gets smarter.

It's even seen in modern humans skin color. As we left Africa and went into Europe, our skin got lighter. Why? Because of Vitamin D. We need some of it, but not too much of it. The suns UV rays tens to kill it and dark skin provides protection. As we moved into colder climates, the melanin in the skin lightened to regulate the amount of vitamin D. Geneticists say that if everyone in Africa moved away to a cold and dreary climate like northern Europe, their descendants would all be white within 20-20 thousand years. We see it in cats and docs with selective breeding, and we see it in bacteria evolving immunities to antibiotics. Flood them with antibiotics and most die. The few that were stronger survive and the offspring is even stronger. They stonger breed with the stronger and multiply that by 100's of generations and you have resistant strains of bacteria.


RE: I don't think so...
By Cheesew1z69 on 12/28/2012 3:58:54 PM , Rating: 2
Oh but those fossils are FAKE! Remember! A few people here SAID SO, IT MUST BE TRUE! It's all a LIE!

/end sarcasm


RE: I don't think so...
By ppardee on 12/28/12, Rating: -1
RE: I don't think so...
By retrospooty on 12/28/2012 8:40:49 PM , Rating: 4
"Evolution is more than what you cite with bacterial strains becoming resistant to antibiotics. There are some major leaps that CAN'T be explained by natural selection.

Of course it is more than that. That is one small example we have seen over the century or so since Penecillin was developed.

"Modern humans have larger brains. That along with standing upright and the changes in the hips/pelvis those required made child birth VERY dangerous. The idea of natural selection would say that these changes would have been weeded out."

That's not how it works. Try more like this. As trees in Africa became more and more scarce there were less and less places for us to hide and the distance between 2 safe places farther and farther. This pushed our tree dwelling ancestors to have to walk to get to the next bunch of trees. Over 100's of thousands of years, those that were faster and able to stand up higher on 2 feet managed to live better, and their offspring did the same and so on and eventually we were erect. This freed up our hands to hold tools that helped us to become hunters that helped us get the protien to facilitate larger brains. Its over 100's of thousands of years.

"That and natural selection doesn't generate new traits."
See previous section or google it FFS!. The info is out there. I didnt make it up.

"The transitional fossils are pretty pathetic."
We have thousands of fossils that document every step of the way with backing data from our own DNA, and archaeological and geological evidence that all paint the same picture. This is why every scientist on Earth knows we evolved and anyone that thinks otherwise is either uninformed or in denial... period. As I said, the debate is long over.


RE: I don't think so...
By Mitch101 on 12/29/2012 8:35:21 AM , Rating: 2
I tell you all I know from watching Discovery Channel and History Channel is everything I learned in School some 20+ years ago is utter BS. I want a regrade.

Hopefully there will be a nice 1-2 hour program on those channels that I can watch that brings me into the 20th century with what the latest theory/facts are.

Until then its aliens.


RE: I don't think so...
By WLee40 on 12/31/2012 1:46:31 PM , Rating: 2
Actually, the UV rays make Vit D (not destroy it). UV rays damage the skin and cause skin cancer which is why there is more melanin to protect the dermis. The increased melanin arises to protect from UV damage and skin cancer. Did you just make your comments up to fit your hypothesis?


RE: I don't think so...
By BillyBatson on 1/2/2013 1:47:24 AM , Rating: 2
I think you are confusing evolution with mutation. Evolution would not produce a significant change to DNA in 1 generation to where it couldn't mate with the previous generation. Therefor you wouldn't need a female and male to go through the evolution at the same time. It's a gradual change. So you wouldn't need early humans to mate with apes it was still apes mating with apes then it was slightly changed apes mating with apes and slightly changed apes. It is a fact that modern humans did mate with pre-modern man so assuming slightly evolved apes could mate with standard apes it pretty reasonable. All big cats can currently interbreed.
Both a female and male didn't evolve in 1 generations into humans.


RE: I don't think so...
By Paj on 1/2/2013 5:38:51 AM , Rating: 2
We didn't evolve from apes. Rather, modern primates (which include apes and monkeys) and humans shared a common ancestor.


RE: I don't think so...
By maugrimtr on 1/2/2013 9:26:43 AM , Rating: 2
Survival of the fittest.

We evolved to live between both trees and grass plains. Apes and chimps only live in one of those environments, we Humans evolved to take advantage of both. Conquering multiple ecosystems favoured selected breeding of intelligence, and language to better coordinate in a social group, which led to tool making, and that gave us everything needed to migrate elsewhere. Out in the open, we required speed above all else to evade predators (or hunt them!). We're bipedal and nimble, we lost body hair and mass to remain streamlined, swift and agile. We lost muscle mass also because climbing trees and was no longer necessary and body mass since we switched to concentrated foods (meat!). We used our tools to master fire, and by extension learned to cook meat and vegtables (less energy in digesting/chewing and more nutrients since cooking is basically an externalised digestion shortcut). We became hunters instead of the hunted.

Eventually, some clever Homo Sapien would put it all together and invented the Scientific Method. Thereafter, we ruled the planet uncontested until we were wiped out by a stray asteroid (except for the Mars Colony :P).

Evolution never quits - it's happening to us right now.


So Check It
By wkepner on 12/30/2012 2:44:27 PM , Rating: 2
Let me clarify something about evolution that will hopefully make this debate a lot easier to discuss.

Basically there are two types of evolution- Micro and Macro.

When someone says "evolution is accepted by every scientist in the world," You're actually referring to
"Micro Evolution" which is simply a change in gene frequency within a given population. Evolution at this scale can be observed over short periods of time — for example, between one generation and the next, e.g. the frequency of a gene for pesticide resistance in a population of crop pests.

On the other hand, "Macro Evolution" is the broader, more controversial topic which many people still disagree on to this day. Macro Evolution deals with the bigger question such as "Where did the FIRST organism evolve from? Primordial soup...Divine Intervention, etc."

So when one understands the basic differences between these two classifications of evolution, it becomes easier to discuss the relative merits of each others' arguments.

So let me put something to rest- Nobody is debating the fact that homo sapiens (humans) evolved from an ape-like creature over millions of years, and that we share a common ancestor with modern day chimps.

People who do NOT believe in this portion of the "theory", are part of an insignificant minority and are mostly just mistaken or misinformed about the overwhelming evidence that debunks their views.

Even the most venerable Christian scientists all concur that micro-evolution is an undeniable fact, so just please learn to accept this as the truth people.

However, don't lose hope yet cuz there is still room for debate in regards to Macro Evolution because of its ridiculous complexity. Where did the first fukin prokaryote amoeba piece of shit cell pop into existence? Who knows? and sorry but nobody can either prove, or disprove the various theories that are floating about in the scientific community, but honestly that's not even what were talking about right now.

Anyways, I hope this bit of info provides some clarity to people who have, like myself, spent many a frustrated afternoon trying to convince the mouth-breathers of the world that "evolution" is more than just a theory.




RE: So Check It
By retrospooty on 12/30/2012 8:45:04 PM , Rating: 2
"Nobody is debating the fact that homo sapiens (humans) evolved from an ape-like creature over millions of years, and that we share a common ancestor with modern day chimps."

Yes they are. Several people on this thread are debating that we evolved from apes, and have on previous articles as well. it's absolutely phenomenal in this day in age that some people are actually ignorant enough to believe that we didn't evolve but they do. And they're very vocal about it, as hilarious as it is to hear. read some of these other post they are actually saying that the thousands and thousands of fossils found all over Africa in all different sediment layers from all different ages are all fake they're saying they're all fake. As if every scientist on earth are involved in a conspiracy to make people believe in evolution. It's absolutely ridiculous but they are saying it. they're saying the DNA evidence, archaeological evidence, geological evidence are all fake and or incorrect. Lol


RE: So Check It
By Piiman on 12/31/2012 4:11:16 PM , Rating: 2
They don't believe scientist but believe a book writen 2000 years ago and rewritten hundreds of times about a dude in the sky that controls everything and made us out of dirt. Amazing isn't it?


RE: So Check It
By retrospooty on 1/1/2013 2:37:37 PM , Rating: 2
LOL, I know right?

Seriously, just so everyone is on the same page and we all know where these nutjobs are coming from I urge you to go back and read the old testament (the first part of the bible). The god described there, isnt an all knowing all powerful being. The God in the Bible, is an insecure, immature, narrow minded, vindictive a$$hole. Seriously, go read it, It is soooo hilarious.

I am not non-religious myself. I do believe that there is "something" guiding the universe, something that created the laws of physics, something greater than ourselves, but I absolutely refuse to believe that the childish prick described in the bible is anyone's god. IF anything the God described in the bible is actually Satan becasue he's an evil lil' turd.


/butthead
By Motoman on 12/27/2012 2:04:18 PM , Rating: 2
huh huh...you said "PNAS."




My theory
By Chosonman on 12/28/2012 10:09:52 AM , Rating: 2
Human intelligence evolved as an arms race against other humans. You see vestiges of conflict among humans every day. We initiated our evolution as much as nature.




CLIMATE CHANGE
By Baldur459 on 12/31/2012 1:24:17 PM , Rating: 2
To quote the learned professor, "The orbit of the Earth around the sun slowly changes with time. These changes were tied to the local climate at Olduvai Gorge through changes in the monsoon system in Africa. Slight changes in the amount of sunshine changed the intensity of atmospheric circulation and the supply of water. The rain patterns that drive the plant patterns follow this monsoon circulation."

WAIT stop tthe presses ! You mean SUV's and factories run by white men aren't to blame??? That can't be true.




No need for council permission.
By drycrust3 on 12/29/2012 4:27:32 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
Early humans went from having trees available to having only grasses available in just 10 to 100 generations

How long does it take to chop down a tree? 2 months if you waited for your local city council, but without? What... two hours (with a rest and a cup of tea and a few biscuits)? Ok, so that was with a steel headed axe, so maybe a day with a stone headed axe. So how long would it take to chop down enough trees to make enough arable land to feed a family worth of crops? A few months? 6 months? And what starts growing as soon as you chop down a tree? Grass! And what are our favourite crops? Glorified grass!
I think this "10 to 100 generations" is way to long for the average IQ human. I reckon most of this could have been done in 20 years, which is 1 generation at the most. If there was a severe drought, half this forest could all have been burnt off in just one season. Viola! 20,000 hectares of cropland!
All in all, I don't think this report gives enough credit to the intelligence of our ancestors.




more propaganda
By heerohawwah on 12/27/12, Rating: -1
RE: more propaganda
By Treckin on 12/27/2012 5:00:06 PM , Rating: 2
What an obvious troll...

I would like to point out that Im really glad to see Mechwarrior Online advets along the websites sidebars; Im using my Transformer Infinity (on which I do not have an adblock), so its possible they have been here for a long time.

Either way, you're a troll, and MWO is pretty awesome - even if its only in dx9 at the moment!


RE: more propaganda
By Cheesew1z69 on 12/27/2012 6:19:38 PM , Rating: 2
He's not just a troll, he is a complete moron.


RE: more propaganda
By heerohawwah on 12/28/12, Rating: -1
RE: more propaganda
By Cheesew1z69 on 12/28/2012 4:02:11 PM , Rating: 1
Maybe you should grow some brain cells and get a fucking clue?


RE: more propaganda
By Piiman on 12/31/2012 4:17:46 PM , Rating: 2
Why do you think all Atheist would be like Stalin? we don't need a make believe God to have morals, at least I don't.

And in case you never noticed your God and the hundreds of other Gods have been the reason for many murders and wars through out history. Your fantasy God is one nice dude isn't he?

So I see your big on Stalin should i list up the leaders that killed in the name of God for you?


RE: more propaganda
By retrospooty on 12/27/2012 7:07:51 PM , Rating: 2
Don't start up again. You have already been outed as a complete waste of skin in the last evolution article. The debate is over, evolution happened... If you cant accept facts and move on them just STFU and keep your elementary view of life to yourself.


RE: more propaganda
By heerohawwah on 12/28/12, Rating: 0
RE: more propaganda
By retrospooty on 12/28/2012 3:54:13 PM , Rating: 2
"retrospooty, I seem to remember you making a rather racist comment last time too; a very short sighted science about black people evolving from white people...a mutation as you claimed."

Racist? Are you smoking crack? I didn't say Black people evolved from white people. I said we are all the same people. White people's skin is light because as they left
Africa and migrated into Europe and their skin lightened. The UV rays of the sun kill vitamin D and melonin regulates it. That isnt racism, that is the opposite. It is showing that we are all of the same species and our differences are weather related, and nothing else. It also isn't a mental problem its proven science. http://www.livescience.com/7863-people-white.html


"The fact that no one has given me a single answer proves that well enough. "


Just becasue you arent cant grasp it, doesnt mean it hasnt been given to you. As I said before it's been proven many times over . Its not even a debate anymore. Its been proven in the 100's of thousands of fossils found all over the earth, documenting every step of the way from a chimp like ape to modern human EVERY STEP OF THE WAY. Its been proven in our DNA, its been proven via geological evidence as well as archaeological evidence. It has also been witnessed as strains of germs develop resistances antibiotics. It is also proven in human skin color. There is no debate that evolution happened. We may not know how it started, and/or who started it or possibly created the laws of the universe that enabled it but we know it happened.

If you want to have a religious debate, it can be said that a god or whatever created the universe and the laws of physics that allowed evolution to happen. You could even debate that a god created evolution with humans in mind as the end result, but you CANNOT say that evolution didn't happen... It is absolutely 100% proven. IF you think it isnt you need to go back to school, because your bible college has lied to you and given you false talking points to try and discredit proven science.


RE: more propaganda
By Cheesew1z69 on 12/28/2012 4:13:33 PM , Rating: 2
I actually watched a program recently that was talking about aliens as who may have created us due to the portrayal of ancient civilization giving clues to un-earthly beings coming down from the sky.

It was a very interesting show.


RE: more propaganda
By retrospooty on 12/28/2012 4:34:49 PM , Rating: 2
Ancient Aliens? Alot of interesting stuff on that show. Some of its a bit crazy, but alot of it really makes you think.


RE: more propaganda
By Cheesew1z69 on 12/28/2012 4:45:54 PM , Rating: 2
It sure does, and kind of makes some sense. The "aliens" or "god" has "programmed" us.

And they think they still do, buy "uploading" new "data" to us to constantly tweak us.


RE: more propaganda
By retrospooty on 12/28/2012 4:53:36 PM , Rating: 2
Tsoukalos hair really makes you think LOL

http://memeimages.com/people/ancient-aliens-guy-gi...


RE: more propaganda
By Cheesew1z69 on 12/28/2012 5:01:05 PM , Rating: 1
No shit! That is one crazy lookin dude! :D


RE: more propaganda
By TakinYourPoints on 12/30/2012 5:57:22 AM , Rating: 2
Yeah, makes you think "wow, this is really stupid". ;)

The only ancient aliens that we are probably evolved from are microbes that hitchhiked on a comet that impacted the Earth and seeded life here. Problem is that the theory that life came from homegrown activity on Earth is probably just as (or more) likely, but we don't know for certain, so whatever. We evolved from those humble beginnings in either case.

Intelligent design by a deity or aliens though, both the same nonsense IMHO.


RE: more propaganda
By Piiman on 12/31/2012 4:35:35 PM , Rating: 2
"Some of its a bit crazy"

Yeah like that one guys hair! LOL
I also love how no matter what the subject they always say "Ancient Alien Theorist believe." LOl Just who are these Ancient Alien Theorist and could they be Ancient Alien themself? Something to think about:-)

Hey for all the God people maybe God is just an Alien or the planet earth is just an Alien Zoo and God is the zoo keeper.


RE: more propaganda
By drycrust3 on 12/29/2012 4:42:12 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
but you CANNOT say that evolution didn't happen... It is absolutely 100% proven.

No, The theory of Evolution is still an unproven theory. It isn't even close to being a credible theory, and every day it gets further and further from the truth. Notice that? It's taking you in the wrong direction! A good theory, which the theory of Evolution isn't a good example of, can be used to make predictions.


RE: more propaganda
By retrospooty on 12/29/2012 7:40:53 AM , Rating: 2
You are wrong. Like i said, we don't know all the details on how it happened, what started it, or why, but we do know that it happened. There are mountains of evidence proving it did happen. We came from Apes that came from earlier primates that came from reptiles that came from the sea etc etc.


RE: more propaganda
By TakinYourPoints on 12/30/2012 6:00:23 AM , Rating: 2
Natural selection has been proven for well over a century. It has absolutely been proven and only gains strength as time goes on.

Holy crap, I didn't know the types of idiotic discussions I've had on DT could range so far and wide. People really still deny this?


RE: more propaganda
By retrospooty on 12/30/2012 10:30:18 AM , Rating: 2
I know. It amazes me that some people are still debating this. They may as well be arguing that the world is flat and that the sun travels across its sky every day. Scary... Just scary.


RE: more propaganda
By finetsky on 12/28/2012 4:21:23 AM , Rating: 2
Yeah, why those crazy scientists even bothered with the serious research based on evidence when you already know it all by hard. Your book tells you all you need to know, right? Your answers are simple. God did it. Just like Santa brings you gifts, ain't it? BTW going to scientific pages and trying to persuade people about creationism is like 1year old kid trying to teach adult how to speak. You just make yourself fool.


RE: more propaganda
By heerohawwah on 12/28/2012 3:02:56 PM , Rating: 1
Regarding Santa: An Engineers Perspective
I. There are approximately two billion children (persons under 18) in the world. However, since Santa does not visit children of Muslim, Hindu, Jewish or Buddhist religions, this reduces the workload for Christmas night to 15% of the total, or 378 million (according to the Population Reference Bureau) At an average (census) rate of 3.5 children per house hold, that comes to 108 million homes, presuming that there is at least one good child in each.

II. Santa has about 31 hours of Christmas to work with, thanks to the different time zones and the rotation of the earth, assuming he travels east to west (which seems logical). This works out to 967.7 visits per second. This is to say that for each Christian household with a good child, Santa has around 1/1000th of a second to park the sleigh, hop out, jump down the chimney, fill the stockings, distribute the remaining presents under the tree, eat whatever snacks have been left for him, get back up the chimney, jump into the sleigh and get on to the next house.
Assuming that each of these 108 million stops is evenly distributed around the earth (which, of course, we know to be false, but will accept for the purposes of our calculations), we are now talking about 0.78 miles per household; a total trip of 75.5 million miles, not counting bathroom stops or breaks. This means Santa's sleigh is moving at 650 miles per second --- 3,000 times the speed of sound. For purposes of comparison, the fastest man-made vehicle, the Ulysses space probe, moves at a poky 27.4 miles per second, and a conventional reindeer can run (at best) 15 miles per hour.

III. The payload of the sleigh adds another interesting element. Assuming that each child gets nothing more than a medium sized Lego set (two pounds), the sleigh is carrying over 500 thousand tons, not counting Santa himself. On land, a conventional reindeer can pull no more than 300 pounds. Even granting that the "flying" reindeer could pull ten times the normal amount, the job can't be done with eight or even nine of them--- Santa would need 360,000 of them. This increases the payload, not counting the weight of the sleigh, another 54,000 tons, or roughly seven times the weight of the Queen Elizabeth (the ship, not the monarch).

IV. 600,000 tons traveling at 650 miles per second creates enormous air resistance --- this would heat up the reindeer in the same fashion as a spacecraft re-entering the earth's atmosphere. The lead pair of reindeer would absorb 14.3 quintillion joules of energy per second each. In short, they would burst into flames almost instantaneously, exposing the reindeer behind them and creating deafening sonic booms in their wake.

The entire reindeer team would be vaporized within 4.26 thousandths of a second, or right about the time Santa reached the fifth house on his trip.

Not that it matters, however, since Santa, as a result of accellerating from a dead stop to 650 m.p.s. in .001 seconds, would be subjected to centrifugal forces of 17,500 g's. A 250 pound Santa (which seems ludicrously slim) would be pinned to the back of the sleigh by 4,315,015 pounds of force, instantly crushing his bones and organs and reducing him to a quivering blob of pink goo.

Therefore, if Santa did exist, he's dead now. "

If you think the math behind Santa is funny, you might want to look at the math behind evolution. It is literally a million orders of magnitude worse...quit being a religous racist.


RE: more propaganda
By Mitch101 on 12/28/2012 3:12:26 PM , Rating: 2
Lets not forget Santa is FAT and fat people aren't exactly known for their athletic speed and agility.


RE: more propaganda
By Cheesew1z69 on 12/28/2012 4:19:27 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
quit being a religous racist
Quit being a close minded moron.


RE: more propaganda
By Piiman on 12/31/2012 4:44:57 PM , Rating: 2
Santa is no more real than God. At leat no one has started a War because Santa told them to kill everyone that didn't believe in him. Stop being a Santa racist!


RE: more propaganda
By guffwd13 on 12/28/2012 10:52:22 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
Seriously, even Beavis and Butt-head wouldn't be dumb enough to believe this religious garbage.


So what you're saying is that God sent you to remind us not to ever believe that he exists? What a beautiful paradox :-)

Because surely no one is dumb enough to believe that even if he did, he didn't build evolution into the whole plan. Oh, wait...



Riiight...
By talikarni on 12/28/12, Rating: -1
RE: Riiight...
By Cheesew1z69 on 12/28/2012 4:00:25 PM , Rating: 3
Evolution is real, get over it.


It's me again
By hiscross on 12/28/12, Rating: -1
RE: It's me again
By retrospooty on 12/28/2012 6:22:46 PM , Rating: 2
Nice. You have jumped in to an evolution thread and jibbed on politics, adding absolutely nothing to either topic. Then you have your usual distasteful signoff of GOD. As if you know the mind of god. How freekin vain can you be. You really make Christians look like a bunch of ignorant, arrogant fools.


RE: It's me again
By hiscross on 12/28/12, Rating: -1
RE: It's me again
By retrospooty on 12/28/2012 11:02:11 PM , Rating: 2
1. I wasn't trying to make that point nor do I care but, 80 or 85 percent of the USA is Christian, so you do the math.
2. No it's proven science, proven again and again and again and collaborated by many different scientific disciplines.
3. I wasn't saying anything about Obama and I don't think he's done a good job I just don't think it has a place in this thread.
4. Let me be honest and perfectly clear... It was the combination of arrogance and ignorance that gave it away.

:p


RE: It's me again
By hiscross on 12/29/2012 2:56:30 PM , Rating: 1
So you say evolution is fact. OK, fair enough then answer these simple questions:
1) If science is correct on evolution, then who are the 1st humans? I want a name and address
2) if science is so correct, then why haven't they cured the common cold, cancer, or aides to name a few issues that have caused humans problems?
3) If science is correct, then why don't know the exact creation of earth: date and time please? (just for the records)
4) If science is so correct, then how come they can't tell how the weather will be the next day? No guessing or estimates, sorry.

Are these questions hard to answer?


RE: It's me again
By retrospooty on 12/31/2012 2:45:52 PM , Rating: 2
"If science is correct on evolution, then who are the 1st humans? I want a name and address"

Not that it was a surprise, but your completely inane questions just underline the fact that you are uneducated and have no idea about how evolution works. You are shoring nothing but your ignorance.

Grab a book and start reading and educate yourself. If a book is too big for you, just try to google it. The info is out there, all over the place. You would have to be 1/2 mentally handicapped to not be able to find it... Then again....


RE: It's me again
By hiscross on 12/31/2012 4:04:49 PM , Rating: 2
How come you liberals never have real truthful answers to simple questions? Purely amazes me how you will believe anything that fits your agenda, but when others present objective facts, it drives you mad.

Answer to question 1} Adam and Eve on day 6 in the Garden of Eden

Now the rest is up to you, if you are up to it.


RE: It's me again
By Piiman on 12/31/2012 4:57:37 PM , Rating: 2
How about you give me Gods address if you can't do that tell me where he came from?? Oh and try to provide one tiny tiny bit of proof he exist. A picture would be nice!

Adam and eve? LOL got proof?!

Certainly there is more proof of Evolution than there is of a God. BTW Which God do you believe in and how do you know he is the real one? There are 100's for them around the world.

You simple don't believe in Evolution because it doesn't jive with your fairy tale God story. A story I'd like to point out that has absolutly nothing to back it up as real.


RE: It's me again
By retrospooty on 1/1/2013 12:07:41 AM , Rating: 2
Lol I know. The funny thing is they talk down to us as if we are stupid. Its like being lectured by a mentally handicapped hillbilly.

Seriously, even other Christians are embarrassed by people this thick headed.


RE: It's me again
By retrospooty on 12/31/2012 9:16:50 PM , Rating: 2
Been there read the book' can't believe anyone would be naive enough to actually take it as fact. My mother and grandmother are both very religious, and pray daily and invoke Jesus into everything that they do... And even they know we evolved and the bibles version of creation was based on folklore from primitive men that didn't have all the facts. FFS, you are just like a slow child.


RE: It's me again
By Piiman on 12/31/2012 4:48:06 PM , Rating: 2
Why are you feeding the Troll God?


RE: It's me again
By hiscross on 1/1/2013 9:46:36 AM , Rating: 2
Happy New Year everyone. I do wish all f you the very best.


diamonds are forever.
By drycrust3 on 12/27/12, Rating: -1
RE: diamonds are forever.
By finetsky on 12/28/2012 4:50:13 AM , Rating: 2
"You know what else I think? I think if they look around in those sediments they might actually find some seeds with DNA in them."
What an advise... :-D you can be sure they took all they could possibly find and analyzed it.
BTW what are you suggesting as a real event? Big flood orchestrated by god? I hope not...
"I think if they bothered to carbon 14 date the stuff they'd get a result, and it wouldn't be 2 million years old."
Of course they bothered with dating! In case they wouldn't nobody would care about such a research. You tell them what should they do and what should they find but you have no basic understanding. Do you realize how stupid that is?


RE: diamonds are forever.
By gladiatorua on 12/28/2012 4:54:04 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Oh, that's right, this leaf wax was actually under the ground for "2 million years". So what they mean is these leaves were buried very quickly by some extinction event, you know, one of those events where billions of dead things were buried by water, and covered by rocks all over the planet.
No, all this means is the chance of some kind of burial event like landslide is high if you take a large area and long period of time.
quote:
Historical records from antiquity, as well as tribal legends from all over the planet do actually mention one such event like that, but of course I doubt they'd be interested in knowing this, especially as these leaves were almost certainly buried in that event
Yes, because local floods are sooo rare. And word of mouth information storage is sooo precise.
quote:
Do you know what I think? I think if they bothered to carbon 14 date the stuff they'd get a result, and it wouldn't be 2 million years old.
Exactly! Because carbon 14 dating has quite limited range. Do you know how carbon 14 dating works? It has a half life of ~5730 years and has natural concentration of 1 part per trillion, so after 57300 years the concentration is reduced by 2^10=1024 times.
quote:
You know what else I think? I think if they look around in those sediments they might actually find some seeds with DNA in them.
Scientists would be happy to ha 2 million year old live seeds.


RE: diamonds are forever.
By EvL OnE on 12/31/2012 11:28:33 AM , Rating: 1
If we can explain how all the animals evolved then man can’t be far off. What was before the big bang and does it = the big collapse....


RE: diamonds are forever.
By Piiman on 12/31/2012 5:03:24 PM , Rating: 2
I like that big collapse thing. Once we stop expanding from the big bang there is no reason gravity won't start pulling us all back. It could be a big endless cycle.


RE: diamonds are forever.
By wgbutler on 12/31/2012 5:14:35 PM , Rating: 2
quote:

I like that big collapse thing. Once we stop expanding from the big bang there is no reason gravity won't start pulling us all back. It could be a big endless cycle.


I know you like it, because it caters to your emotional desire for atheism to be true. Your problem is that one of the leading cosmologists in the world has already discredited the "endless cycle" hypothesis and says that all the scientific evidence points to the universe having a distinct beginning.

http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/...

quote:

Disorder increases with time. So following each cycle, the universe must get more and more disordered. But if there has already been an infinite number of cycles, the universe we inhabit now should be in a state of maximum disorder. Such a universe would be uniformly lukewarm and featureless, and definitely lacking such complicated beings as stars, planets and physicists – nothing like the one we see around us.

One way around that is to propose that the universe just gets bigger with every cycle. Then the amount of disorder per volume doesn’t increase, so needn’t reach the maximum. But Vilenkin found that this scenario falls prey to the same mathematical argument as eternal inflation: if your universe keeps getting bigger, it must have started somewhere.


"I'd be pissed too, but you didn't have to go all Minority Report on his ass!" -- Jon Stewart on police raiding Gizmodo editor Jason Chen's home














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