jump to last post 1-18 of 18 discussions (129 posts)

New Fossils Found in South Africa (Evolution??????)

  1. cooldad profile image60
    cooldadposted 6 years ago

    http://s2.hubimg.com/u/5520673_f248.jpg
    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/09/scien … wanted=all

    New fossils were found in South Africa which may help further explain human evolution.  The fossils apparently show combinations of apelike and human combinations.

    Any thoughts?

    1. Slarty O'Brian profile image85
      Slarty O'Brianposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      As with all finds we have to wait and see. But evolution is a fact. There is no getting around it.

      However, you have to  realize one thing. We are not descended from apes. We are a specific species of ape. All ape species have common ancestors that were not apes.

      Tracing this linage through the fossil record is not an easy thing. However genetics tells the story far better. Unfortunately it does not give us pretty pictures to look at. wink

      1. profile image0
        toobsuckerposted 6 years agoin reply to this

        If evolution is  a fact, how does the theory explain the elements that can not evolve?. The conserved elements in all species are not subject to any evolutionary mechanisms, yet Darwinian evolution requires ALL elements in the cells to be subject to change. All of the proteins in all the molecular machines studied are highly conserved (unable to evolve)

        UCE falsify Darwinian evolution.

        1. SlyMJ profile image61
          SlyMJposted 6 years agoin reply to this

          Baffled: all articles I've ever read about the evolution of proteins in molecular machines support Darwinian theory.

          You wouldn't be talking about conserved sequences here, would you? The ones that mean that when they mutate, your head falls off, so you don't get to reproduce? Obviously some gene sequences are more important to immediate survival than others, and therefore persist.

          There are no elements that cannot evolve; just some that evolve more readily than others.

          'UCE falsify Darwinian evolution' is about as meaningful as 'Italian Scientists disprove Einstein'. Neither are remotely true, but they make good headlines.

          1. profile image0
            toobsuckerposted 6 years agoin reply to this

            Yes I am talking about conserved sequences. The problem is they exist in all species including the most primitive cells. Darwinian evolution predicts 100% of the biological system must be subject to change.

            This is not the case. Any elements that can not be changed falsify a theory that predicts 100% system change

            1. kerryg profile image87
              kerrygposted 6 years agoin reply to this

              It's not that they can't change. They change exactly the same way every other section of the genome does: via mutation. It's that changes to them are fatal for any individual unlucky enough to experience that particular mutation, so the mutation never has the opportunity to spread into the wider population. Mutations that are beneficial, neutral, or have a delayed negative effect, on the other hand, do have the opportunity to spread into the wider population.

              1. profile image0
                toobsuckerposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                Your explanation does not explain how, it explains how not. Saying the reason why these life essential sequences are frozen, is because if they were not frozen (as luck would have it) the species would not survive, is not a mechanism that demonstrates how the UCE can evolve into functional sequences. Its a mechanism that explains if and when (although never demonstrated) the UCE that code for the ribosomes evolve, the organism dies.

                The sequences in the UCE that code for essential functions are never observed to change their sequences. This alone should tell you they are evolutionary frozen

                And the fact that evolutionary science disagrees with you. They believe the sequences have been frozen since the first cells existed

                "These ultra-conserved elements are long, they evolved rather rapidly, and they are now evolutionarily frozen. We don't know of a biomolecular mechanism that would explain them," Professor David Haussler

                "The DNA sequences that code for ribosomal RNA contain long stretches of bases that are perfectly conserved throughout evolution. Unlike the ultra-conserved elements uncovered in this study, though, ribosomal RNA is ancient and is common to all species"

                1. wilderness profile image99
                  wildernessposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                  ""These ultra-conserved elements are long, they evolved rather rapidly, and they are now evolutionarily frozen" (bolding added).

                  Professor Haussler pretty plainly states that the UCE evolved - why do you insist they can't evolve and have existed as is since the first cell?

                  1. profile image0
                    toobsuckerposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                    Of course he does, he is an evolutionist, he must believe they evolved. However he has no observable evidence the UCE are subject to any current evolutionary mechanism. So he assumes they were subject to evolution in the past

                    All current evolutionary mechanism will not change the UCE. This we do know.

                    We have no evidence the UCE can be changed so it is by faith Haussler believes they evolved

                    And all eukaryote cells share some identical UCE. we know they have not changed

                2. kerryg profile image87
                  kerrygposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                  "The sequences in the UCE that code for essential functions are never observed to change their sequences. This alone should tell you they are evolutionary frozen"

                  I would think that the logistics of finding changes to the conserved sequences would be a fairly significant barrier to observing any. I mean, if you want to go picking through the genomes of miscarried fetuses, be my guest, but chances are, most mutations in such critical gene sequences never even make it past the blastocyst and gastrula phases and at that point any miscarriage will look like a slightly heavy menstrual cycle at most, so I'm not sure how you'd even go about identifying candidates to start looking for changes to the conserved sequences.

                  "Your explanation does not explain how, it explains how not."

                  Not all mutations are negative. The "how" is presumably the same way everything else evolved - minute positive or neutral changes spreading through the population and building up over hundreds of thousands, millions, or even billions of years of time. Eventually, something worked well enough for enough different ancestral organisms that it stuck around more or less unchanged in the majority of their descendents, just as a stable environment can result in creatures that show very little change over hundreds of millions of years, such as horseshoe crabs or sharks, while a rapidly changing environment results in far more rapid speciation.

                  We have evidence in mitochondrial DNA and various non-standard codon translations in different types of primitive single celled organisms that early life experimented with multiple different translation systems before the majority of organisms settled on the one in most common use today. It is not illogical to speculate that earlier forms of life may have experimented with even more basic functions. The first evidence of life on earth is about 3.7 billion years old, but the oldest undisputed proof of early life is 3 billion years old, the first eukaryotes didn't show up until around 1.5-2.5 billion years ago, and the first multicellular organisms only showed up about 1 billion years ago. That is a heck of a long time to spend hashing out the basics, with very little physical evidence surviving from the period to give scientists a clear indication of what was going on. As a result, speculation is all we have, but the fact that we don't have a definitive natural answer to the question of exactly when and how the conserved sequences evolved does not mean that a natural answer does not exist, and it certainly doesn't imply that supernatural involvement is the only possible solution.

                  1. profile image0
                    toobsuckerposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                    "chances are, most mutations in such critical gene sequences never even make it past the blastocyst and gastrula phases"

                    That's what I mean when I say, the theory does not explain how, it explains how not. All evolutionary biologists today agree natural selection removes nonfunctional & fatal sequences from the gene pool (explains how not). The problem for methodological naturalism is selection is only observed to remove nonfunctional and less fit sequences. The theory can not explain by what mechanisms the conserved functional sequences got arranged in the fist place, and then (as luck would have it) become frozen. Selection only explains if and when conserved functional elements do become unfrozen, they are removed. A valid theory needs to explain how not how not. Luck is not a valid mechanism in a valid theory

                    http://www.lbl.gov/Science-Articles/Arc … erved.html

                    "There is plenty of evidence that highly conserved sequences do perform vital functions," says Ahituv. "Indeed, locating noncoding sequences that have been unchanged by evolution is one of the main tools scientists use to find important functional elements in a genome."

                    "While it's conceivable that conserved sequences are somehow immune to mutations for reasons that have nothing to do with evolutionary pressures, the mechanism of such "sequence armoring" is hard to imagine. The 731-base pair sequence, uc467, should normally have accumulated some 334 nucleotide changes in the more than 80 million years that mice, rats, and humans have been evolving along separate paths."

                    ====

                    "We have evidence in mitochondrial DNA and various non-standard codon translations in different types of primitive single celled organisms that early life experimented with multiple different translation systems before the majority of organisms settled on the one in most common use today"

                    There are many variations in the DNA code. In fact In 2011 at an origins of life symposium [The Great Debate What Is Life] Craig Venter had to school Dawkins that still believed all life shared the same DNA code. Atheism's high priest does not even have his facts straight.

                    And all these variations are functional. Show me the evidence that nonfunctional or suboptimal sequences ever existed. I have never seen it. I'M sure you understand information theory and that what determines if something is "information" or not is if both the sender and receiver agree on the meaning. Functional variations in the DNA codes is how we know the DNA codes are 100% arbitrary and true information systems. One code will not be understood by organism with a different code. Venter understand this well

                    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15563395

                    Chance and necessity do not explain the origin of life.

                    "Where and how did the complex genetic instruction set programmed into DNA come into existence? The genetic set may have arisen elsewhere and was transported to the Earth. If not, it arose on the Earth, and became the genetic code in a previous lifeless, physical-chemical world. Even if RNA or DNA were inserted into a lifeless world, they would not contain any genetic instructions unless each nucleotide selection in the sequence was programmed for function. Even then, a predetermined communication system would have had to be in place for any message to be understood at the destination Transcription and translation would not necessarily have been needed in an RNA world. Ribozymes could have accomplished some of the simpler functions of current protein enzymes. Templating of single RNA strands followed by retemplating back to a sense strand could have occurred. But this process does not explain the derivation of "sense" in any strand. "Sense" means algorithmic function achieved through sequences of certain decision-node switch-settings. These particular primary structures determine secondary and tertiary structures. Each sequence determines minimum-free-energy folding propensities, binding site specificity, and function. Minimal metabolism would be needed for cells to be capable of growth and division. All known metabolism is cybernetic--that is, it is programmatically and algorithmically organized and controlled'

                    ======

                    "It is not illogical to speculate that earlier forms of life may have experimented with even more basic functions."

                    That's all it is, a speculation. Cyanobacterium is the first life (that I'M aware of) to show up in the fossil record and has remained unchanged

                    "The group [Cyanobacterium] shows what is probably the most extreme conservatism of morphology of any organisms" berkeley.edu

                    No morphology in 3.5by.

                    Darwinian evolutions problem is the entire fossil record show this same degree of sudden appearance and stasis. Combine rampant stasis with a myriad of living fossils all through Cambrian and the rest of the fossil record, and this equates fatality for evolution. Gould had to invent P.E. (with no mechanisms to show for it) just to keep the morphology theory from falsification. 

                    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17708768

                    The Biological Big Bang model for the major transitions in evolution.

                    "Major transitions in biological evolution show the same pattern of sudden emergence of diverse forms at a new level of complexity. The relationships between major groups within an emergent new class of biological entities are hard to decipher and do not seem to fit the tree pattern that, following Darwin's original proposal, remains the dominant description of biological evolution. The cases in point include the origin of complex RNA molecules and protein folds; major groups of viruses; archaea and bacteria, and the principal lineages within each of these prokaryotic domains; eukaryotic supergroups; and animal phyla. In each of these pivotal nexuses in life's history, the principal "types" seem to appear rapidly and fully equipped with the signature features of the respective new level of biological organization. No intermediate "grades" or intermediate forms between different types are detectable."

                    ========

                    It amazes me how Darwinian evolution is held on to so vehemently even after every prediction it has made has been repeatedly falsified. Molecular biology has the theory all but publicly falsified. And now large portions of the genome are proving to be not subject to evolutionary mechanisms. And the only excuse evolutionary science has for them is "if they were not precisely frozen, the species would not survive"

                    And today we can observe all the mechanism for genetic change and we know they do not effect the conserved elements. And we also know most of the conserved elements are located in the non-coding (formally predicted to be JUNK DNA) regions. "JUNK DNA" is proving to be the command and control center of the genome.

                    Darwinian evolution stands or falls on forward evolving functional protein folds. Yet evidence of morphology being produced by evolving protein folds is nonexistent. Protein misfolding (Darwinian evolution) causes less fit organisms, how ironic.

                    "From the data available at this time, it would seem that protein structure has been much more conserved during evolution than genetically based amino acid sequences,"  Chemist Sung-Hou Kim, Berkeley

                    The ONLY REASON why Darwinian evolution has not been falsified, is because there is nothing to replace it with other that I.D. And the Godless liberals in science will not allow that.

    2. profile image60
      paarsurreyposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      Evolution did happen; truthful religion does not deny it.

    3. Utkarsh raj profile image74
      Utkarsh rajposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      I dont agree with the concept of evolution which is mere speculation of relating the creatures without any fossil proof the one which claims to be are under scrutiny and many believe they are manipulated to support the theory as one in 1912.......

      1. Randy Godwin profile image95
        Randy Godwinposted 6 years agoin reply to this

        I doubt seriously you understand the process you are denigrating.  Where did you learn there are no fossils supporting evolution?

      2. profile image58
        laptop-coolerposted 6 years agoin reply to this

        So because some scientist in 1912 tried to make a name for themselves, you decide that every single fossil supporting evolution found before or after that is not valid??

  2. GodTalk profile image81
    GodTalkposted 6 years ago

    You may want to wait  before getting too excited.  The 'Bird Dinosaur' is one of many findings that have proven to be frauds.  You don't want to build yourself up for a big let down.

    1. kerryg profile image87
      kerrygposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      If you're referring to Archaeopteryx, you're mistaken. It has in fact been proven not to be a fraud. The similarly named Archaeoraptor did turn out to be a hoax, but there are plenty of other examples of feathered dinosaurs and dinosaur-like birds. Even T-Rex may have had feathers - it was a close relative of the dinosaurs that turned into birds.

      1. GodTalk profile image81
        GodTalkposted 6 years agoin reply to this

        Obviously I am referring to the Archaeoraptor.  And I would challenge your evidence for any transitional species. Check out the era dubbed as the Cambrian Explosion. It doesn't appear that your evidence for transition is all that strong after all.

        1. Cagsil profile image61
          Cagsilposted 6 years agoin reply to this

          And, you comment has no real baring on what Kerryg actually said. Kerryg already said that one was a fraud and the other was a proven fact. Then you replied by bring up the one which Kerryg already said was a fraud.

          So your statement is meaningless, considering you two are agreeing, except for the end of your comment, which actually does nothing to change what Kerryg said to begin with.

          So why exactly did you comment further or in the manner you did?

          You could have just agreed with Kerryg and been done with. roll

        2. kerryg profile image87
          kerrygposted 6 years agoin reply to this

          The so-called Cambrian explosion took place hundreds of millions of years before the dinosaurs appeared, so I'm not sure what bearing you think it has on the transition from dinosaurs to birds.

          As for the so-called Cambrian explosion itself, it seems to be a favorite argument of ID proponents around these forums, but most of you seem to be working off incomplete or out-of-date information about it. In fact, the whole concept of the Cambrian explosion is now considered to be rather out-of-date, because pre-Cambrian precursors to many of the species that were once thought to have emerged suddenly in the Cambrian period have now been found. Though life certainly did diversify impressively during the period, it is now known that it didn't do so significantly faster than in any other period of Earth's history.  It's useful to remember that the "explosion" actually took place over a period of 70-80 million years. For comparison, consider that 70-80 million years before the present day, dinosaurs still ruled the Earth and our own ancestors were furry little proto-primates about the size of squirrels, so I think we can agree that the so-called explosion was hardly the blink of an eye that ID proponents like to depict it as.

        3. mikelong profile image73
          mikelongposted 6 years agoin reply to this

          What are yoy trying to say about the Cambrian Explosion? That it didn't happen?

          1. kerryg profile image87
            kerrygposted 6 years agoin reply to this

            The usual creationist argument is that a whole bunch of new forms and species appeared from nowhere during the Cambrian Explosion, supposedly lending credence to the idea that God did it. Unfortunately, that argument is about 40 years out of date and is now known to be false.

    2. cooldad profile image60
      cooldadposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      I'm just curious.  I've only heard a little bit.  I'm not doing cartwheels and jumping over the pews trying to convert anyone.  I simply saw the story online and was curious.

    3. Slarty O'Brian profile image85
      Slarty O'Brianposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      You may want to actually study the topic before you start spouting bad information.

    4. profile image58
      laptop-coolerposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      Congratulations, you instantly assume that any fossil find may be a fraud because a dozen or so fraudsters have tried to make a name despite the hundreds of thousands of genuine fossils dug up every year.

  3. profile image0
    Holmes221bposted 6 years ago

    If the findings turn out to be false, this will be used by the creationists as evidence to back up their claims.  If on-the-other-hand, they turn out to be genuine, they will be totally ignored by the creationists, who will deny they even exist.  So, such findings will not change the beliefs of the creationists at all.  If they turn out to be genuine however, it will be another piece of evidence in favour of evolution to add to the huge amount which already exists.

    1. AEvans profile image79
      AEvansposted 6 years ago

      Here is a question? Many of my friends believe in evolution, which is fine. But what created all that evolved? smile What blew air into human life form? If the amoeba co-existed first, then what created that?

      1. Edwinoel Tanglao profile image79
        Edwinoel Tanglaoposted 6 years agoin reply to this

        Oh yeah, some learned people and scholar may think they are better than God as they refuse to believe in creation and the existence of God. In the bible, are they not those who have ears yet cannot hear, and have eyes, yet cannot see, and worse, they refuse to listen?  Sounds familiar?   Yup, you can see people who pretend to believe in God but they don't want to read the bible or even listen to the words of God.  I have seen the human embryo grow in stages, and in its wonder, I have seen the hands of God working for the love of man.  And everything that happens in this life, I have learned to see the wisdom of thanking God for all my blessings in this life, and most of all, for giving us His only begotten Son, Christ Jesus, as the true Messiah and Redeemer, the light of the world.  "And the word was made flesh, and became man..."  Jesus Christ, "the truth, the way and the life."

        1. recommend1 profile image74
          recommend1posted 6 years agoin reply to this

          Hallelubah !  I have seen stuff and it did made me think an all that stuffs - but I stopped with that nonsense and blabber blabber blabber now.

          You have seen nothing that is not attributaable to man and / nature - you have never seen your god, not even its hand - in fact not even an anything.

          1. Edwinoel Tanglao profile image79
            Edwinoel Tanglaoposted 6 years agoin reply to this

            (Matthew 13:14-15), “In them is fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah,
            “You will be ever hearing but never understanding; you will be ever seeing but never perceiving; for this people’s heart has become calloused; they hardly hear with their ears, and they have closed their eyes.  Otherwise they might see with their eyes, hear with their ears, understand with their hearts and turn, and I would heal them.”  Have you heard of many who had been healed of cancer, organ failure, from flesh eating organisms,
            paralysis, and the like - yes, through their faith in Christ Jesus, they were healed? If many evolved from the apes, how come apes are still in existence?  If evolution is real and true, how come Charles Darwin himself doubted his own theory as he failed in proving the missing links?   Man can always be proud of himself as he takes pride of what he knows and of his intelligence, but fail to realize that all these come from God.  Even the brain of Albert Einstein was preserved for further research and study but until now, there's no conclusive proof of what makes his brain different from the rest of us.  Until now, science cannot explain the origin of the magnetic field in the N & S poles of planet earth or why the earth has life in it while others don't.  Even genetics becomes a question if we came from the apes.  Until now, I still have to hear of someone having been born with an ape like appearance, lol.  And if God is not real, what can you say about the incorruptible bodies of some saints, miracles of the Holy Eucharist in South Korea, apparition of the Blessed Virgin Mother in more than a dozen sites from around the world delivering her message of love and faith in Christ Jesus, the miracle of a mysterious cloth or mantle whose source and appearance baffles scholars and experts to date, including the Shroud of Turin, in which science has no clear explanation on the enormous light that produced the distinct image on the cloth material, and many more?  You may have your own explanations and theories about all these, but still, they will stay as theories unlike the truth in God's words in Christ, as written in the Holy Bible.  The messages in God's words stay true until today, including the wrath of God for unbelievers and  habitual sinners, despots, dictators, abusive rulers, false beliefs and false prophets, etc. that it is not us, but God in His anger who will repay as in Romans 12:19 and Proverbs 20:22.  No human wisdom or intelligence can ever understand the existence of God and His power in Christ Jesus, as God is spirit.  Only those who open their hearts and spirit, will see the truth in God and in His words.  God loves us all that He wants us to open ourselves to Christ, His Son, that we may learn to know him more and see the light of Christ as he heals us all from our pride, selfishness and hardened spirit, that we may see true peace and happiness within and around us.  If you still will not listen I will pray for your enlightenment.  Or, you must be kidding me, lol.  You're doing a good job though beefing up conversation on this site.

            1. recommend1 profile image74
              recommend1posted 6 years agoin reply to this

              What a load of twaddle - you list a litany of lies and fakes, even including the Shroud of Turin that was carbon dated to mediaeval times and now a world renowned fake.

              And all this rubbish instead of letting us know about this god you say have seen.

              Liars for jesus busy faking any and everything.

        2. AEvans profile image79
          AEvansposted 6 years agoin reply to this

          What a good answer. smile I believe in God, but I do have friends who do not. I believe our answers are so amazing. I thank God to for each and everyday. smile

      2. cooldad profile image60
        cooldadposted 6 years agoin reply to this

        @AEvans: That same logic could be flipped around to ask believers, If god is real, who created him and so on and so on and so on.

        1. AEvans profile image79
          AEvansposted 6 years agoin reply to this

          It sounds logical, if we base it on logic. But when I am in the forums everyone (including myself) tend to look for facts. I wish we could all come to some type of understanding in our individual beliefs. And everyone could get along without arguing who is right and who is wrong. sad Acceptance of each other is where we gain knowledge and understanding for all mankind. smile

      3. profile image58
        laptop-coolerposted 6 years agoin reply to this

        Chemical reactions.  Co existent chemical reactions appear all the time, and many, even in modern day ecosystems.

    2. TMMason profile image69
      TMMasonposted 6 years ago

      Probrably another fraud.

      Either that or they will go to guessing as usual.

      Huh... let the laughs begin!

    3. GodTalk profile image81
      GodTalkposted 6 years ago

      Casgil: I am not sure to whom you were speaking, but I cannot agree with anything Kerryg says. Any so called transitional species are far from proven facts.  I don't necessarily refute the evidence as much as the conclusions derived from the evidence. And anyone who thinks that the theory of evolution  is beyond dispute, which you seem  to believe, is merely fooling themselves.

      1. Cagsil profile image61
        Cagsilposted 6 years agoin reply to this

        You appear to not want it to be true. However, it's been accomplish in many aspects to have been proven.

        There were TWO things mentioned in Kerryg's post. Only one you could dispute. Which, Kerryg mentioned was a fraud. Thus, you were agreeing with Kerryg, even if you don't want to recognize it, your statement agrees with Kerryg.

        So please....Evolution has been proven and only idiots attempt to dispute it.

        The fact that you're attempting to dispute what has already passed peer review of the scientific community, is obviously your individual misunderstanding of how things work.

        And, as almost every person who understands evolution, none of them, make the claim that it's proof that a god doesn't exist.

        You pushing distortion and misinformation, to support what you think people are using Evolution for, is your problem.

      2. TMMason profile image69
        TMMasonposted 6 years agoin reply to this

        Exactly, talk.

        It is not evolution that we do not see... it is their interpretation of the so called evidence to support thier lil master-piece of atheistic theology.

        There are no transitional fossils in the record, anyone who use the fossil record to try to support the theory as they spout it is not even credible. The Cambrian explosion destroys evolution as they claim... and so many other holes. Not to mention the fraudulent evidence they seem to throw around as fact, Pilt-down man, black moth study, embryology, Miller-Urey, all frauds... and still they have them in the science books and taught to the lil ones as though they are real.

        And then they want to be trusted.

        Right.

        They just do not seem to get that the jig is up. All the Leftist lies of the last 90 years are falling apart... and they are scrambling to finish destroying this country before all their lies and games collapse.

        1. profile image58
          laptop-coolerposted 6 years agoin reply to this

          Holes and missing fossils do not disprove evolution, they merely show that fossils yet need to be found to fully explain certain evolutionary trends.  And yes, there are fossil records that show the growth of evolution, even in the very earliest days of life on earth.

          Feel free to keep spouting the nonsense that there are no transitional fossils, or go to a museum and look at them for yourself, it really is your choice.

      3. profile image58
        laptop-coolerposted 6 years agoin reply to this

        If you don't believe in transitional species - look at the evolution of dogs.

    4. earnestshub profile image88
      earnestshubposted 6 years ago

      Yes the Australians are still pretending they have 46,000 year old fossils, and even claim they are real.

      Everyone knows it must be all lies, after all, a pile of religious fanatics with an axe to grind don't believe in them. smile

      http://anthro.palomar.edu/homo2/mod_homo_4.htm

    5. melpor profile image94
      melporposted 6 years ago

      Cooldad, I read an abstract about this finding last week and just got my hands on the actual scientific publication. I am planning to read it and hopeful I will break it down in a hub in the near future. It sounds like a very interesting discovering. I have alway had an interest in anthropology and paleontological work.

      1. earnestshub profile image88
        earnestshubposted 6 years agoin reply to this

        Here is an exciting new discovery!

        NEWS:  In March 2010, Johannes Krause of the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Germany announced that the mitochondrial DNA recovered from a 50,000-30,000 year old finger bone found at a Siberian cave site known as Denisova is from an up to now unknown form of human (now referred to as the Denisovans).  This possible new variety or even new species of human lived at the same time as Neandertals and early modern humans (March 24, 2010 Nature).  About 4-6% of the DNA of the living New Guineans and other Melanesians appears to be inherited from the Denisovans (December 23, 2010 Nature).  This would imply that their ancestors interbred to some extent.

        1. melpor profile image94
          melporposted 6 years agoin reply to this

          Earnestshub, I read about this recently. Anthropologists have long said there were several species of early hominids living simultaneously more than 200,000 yrs ago. But they did not know whether or not they interbred because they roamed in groups scattered far and wide from each other until this recent discovery of another species.

          Let me clarify one thing here, all these species originated in Africa as one species and migrated from there at different times and gradually evolved into the other species over time in new locations due to the their separation from the other groups.

    6. GodTalk profile image81
      GodTalkposted 6 years ago

      If you happen to find life suddenly appearing out of nowhere, then maybe you'll have a real discovery.

      1. earnestshub profile image88
        earnestshubposted 6 years agoin reply to this

        Who made your god again?

        1. GodTalk profile image81
          GodTalkposted 6 years agoin reply to this

          God isn't part of this universe that is governed by certain laws. One of which is that matter doesn't just appear out of nowhere and form life out of non-life. Otherwise, you should be careful what you might be eating when you open up your next jar of Skippy peanut butter. Some new life form may pop out.

          1. earnestshub profile image88
            earnestshubposted 6 years agoin reply to this

            Ya gotta be kiddin me right?

            Haven't you heard? Evolution is a done deal, we are stardust, and we have known how life was formed for many years now, as well as the exact age of the universe and this little blue green thingy. smile

            1. GodTalk profile image81
              GodTalkposted 6 years agoin reply to this

              You gotta be kiddin me right? It is hard to tell where your fantasy ends and your "truth" begins.

              1. earnestshub profile image88
                earnestshubposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                Tell that to Lawrence Krauss! (To use a religious tactic) smile

                1. GodTalk profile image81
                  GodTalkposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                  If Mr. Krauss were on this forum I would. But I'll have to settle with telling you. Maybe you could relate it to him for me. Thanks.

            2. TMMason profile image69
              TMMasonposted 6 years agoin reply to this

              That is a laugh riot, E.

              You do know that cosmologists are aware that the supppossed age of the universe does not allow for enough time for energy to cool to matter and then to the amount of mass we now see?

              Don't you?

              Just not enough time... period!

              So no... we do not know the exact age of the universe.

              We guess at it... just like all the other things you all spout about.

              And then there is carbon dating... what a laugh.

              Man my stomach hurts E... quit it would ya.

              I esp. like how all of a sudden the Cambrian explosion was nothing really... and all fossils are transitional fossils... man my stomach... what a laugh.

              1. earnestshub profile image88
                earnestshubposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                Year I get a laugh out of this as well! Lawrence Krauss, Darwin, Hawking, et al are just ignorant country bumpkins who guess at everything. lol

              2. kerryg profile image87
                kerrygposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                I esp. like how all of a sudden science is supposed to stay static and not ever progress or learn new things, as if it were some dusty 6000 year old religious tract passed down from illiterate sheep herders... man, my stomach. What a laugh!

                1. TMMason profile image69
                  TMMasonposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                  Science progresses all the time... usually it occurs right after it sheds its biased and aroggant suppositions and assumptions on a subject.

                  1. Slarty O'Brian profile image85
                    Slarty O'Brianposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                    However, religion can never shed its biased and aroggant suppositions and assumptions on a subject because it says there is no evolution so it can not evolve. lol...

                    At least science can evolve and drop  biased and aroggant suppositions and assumptions on a subject.

                    1. TMMason profile image69
                      TMMasonposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                      Where do you see my religion saying there is no evolution?

                      I think you are making assumptions based on your own bias about a book you have not read.

                      The entire Bible is about Evolution... the Evolution of the spirit of Man.

                      Again... if you can show me in the bible where it says there is no evolution... then produce it.

                      I will be here waiting.

                  2. kerryg profile image87
                    kerrygposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                    Yeah, like the biased and arrogant supposition that because we hadn't found pre-Cambrian precursors to "new" Cambrian species, they didn't exist. Or the biased and arrogant supposition that there's a precise halfway point for the transition from one species to another, instead of millions of minute individual changes that spread through the population and snowball over tens and hundreds of thousand years.

                    1. TMMason profile image69
                      TMMasonposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                      Well this could go on forever, kerry...

                      I will just agree with you that there is a lot of biased arrogance and supposition in science.

                      Sounds good to me.

                      Glad you agree

    7. GodTalk profile image81
      GodTalkposted 6 years ago

      You seem to be speaking in tongues. I am not sure what you are saying but it sounds like you didn't like what I stated.  By  the way, have you ever seen any experiments in a laboratory that can be repeated over and over again to Scientifically prove that evolution is a true science?  You see evidence and interpret it according to your own biased worldview, just like you claim that I do. But true science is based upon repeatable experiments.  Maybe evolution isn't really a true science? Can I hear an Amen?

      1. earnestshub profile image88
        earnestshubposted 6 years agoin reply to this

        Why don't we talk about it after you get an education?

        1. GodTalk profile image81
          GodTalkposted 6 years agoin reply to this

          Is is that you don't want to educate me, or is it that I'm right?

          1. earnestshub profile image88
            earnestshubposted 6 years agoin reply to this

            No education can penetrate the god myth in full flight from the religiously impaired. If it ain't in the book it's out.
            The fact that the book is the most pornographic psychotic pile of words except for it's sister book of hate the quoran, seems to be missed somehow, and therein lies unimaginable gullibility combined with a capacity for selective thinking that also defies logic or even common sense.

      2. kerryg profile image87
        kerrygposted 6 years agoin reply to this

        Microevolution, which is really just evolution that hasn't had long enough to become macroevolution, is already proven through repeatable laboratory experiments. If you figure out how to live for a couple million years, by all means pass it on to scientists so they can perform repeatable laboratory experiments that demonstrate macroevolution in action. Meanwhile, the closest thing we've got to eternal life is examining fossils, and the fossil evidence overwhelmingly supports the existence of macroevolution.

    8. GodTalk profile image81
      GodTalkposted 6 years ago

      I'll take that as an affirmative for the "I'm right" category.

      1. earnestshub profile image88
        earnestshubposted 6 years agoin reply to this

        lol A religionist with a sense of humour? Tell me it isn't so! lol

        1. GodTalk profile image81
          GodTalkposted 6 years agoin reply to this

          Yes, sometimes I surprise even myself!

    9. earnestshub profile image88
      earnestshubposted 6 years ago

      They are not new fossils!





      goddunnit!

    10. GodTalk profile image81
      GodTalkposted 6 years ago

      Glad you finally saw the light and are on our side earnestshub.

      1. earnestshub profile image88
        earnestshubposted 6 years agoin reply to this

        It was the logic that done it! lol

    11. earnestshub profile image88
      earnestshubposted 6 years ago

      The pride and selfishness you speak of is the calling card of religion, not a lack of it! lol

    12. recommend1 profile image74
      recommend1posted 6 years ago

      copy pasting yards of bu!!@hit does not make it any less bull.

      1. profile image0
        toobsuckerposted 6 years agoin reply to this

        I was hoping to have at least one of my arguments refuted by actual evidence

        If you have not noticed yet intelligent design has put Darwinian evolution on trial before the entire world. The more we learn about biology the more complex its getting.

        Telling the Judge "copy pasting yards of bu!!@hit does not make it any less bull" as a defense will not fly in this court room

        The scientific reformation is going on right now. Many scientists will soon break away from methodological naturalism because their intellectual integrity relies on it, and they know it.

        1. recommend1 profile image74
          recommend1posted 6 years agoin reply to this

          No it is not 'on trial' anywhere except in a few deluded minds.  No scientist is breaking away from scientific theory and discovery to indulge in the constructed twaddle of ID.  And pasting up yards of words, that you do not understand enough to argue with you about, is just wallpapering the empty walls of your mind.

        2. A Troubled Man profile image60
          A Troubled Manposted 6 years agoin reply to this

          lol Dishonesty and comedy know no bounds here.

    13. luvpassion profile image59
      luvpassionposted 6 years ago

      Perhaps both are right. Those who believe in a higher power were created as an image of that power, and those who don't were decended from monkeys. Makes perfect sense if you think about it explains why there's such a difference of opinion because both sides are absolutly sure they're right. roll


      P.S. Please don't wait til I'm on my flight to Ireland before responding...thanks. lol

      1. profile image0
        toobsuckerposted 6 years agoin reply to this

        Ireland, I have Irish friends who go back there regularly.

        I believe in a type of evolution of built in variations that are selected for as the environment changes, so slight variations are observable, however no radical changes of Darwinian necessity are ever observed, only minor variations for adaptation purposes.

        P.S. I was a little slow on that joke

    14. profile image58
      laptop-coolerposted 6 years ago

      In regards to the fossil found in Africa, it may be a fraud, it has happened before, but it is also regarded as the birthplace of humanity.

      Trying to find fossils in Africa is not particularly easy, but people are searching.

    15. profile image60
      paarsurreyposted 6 years ago

      Man got created via evolution; hence the fossils being found in different part of the world.

     
    working