Human Origins Rethink ?
- Started
- Last post
- 72 Responses
- JazX0
- note the word "seems"TheBlueOne
- ...and so it begins...TheBlueOne
- note he never did say that either.zarkonite
- TheBlueOne0
Complete quote that didn't fir on the t-shirt:
"To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree. Yet reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a perfect and complex eye to one very imperfect and simple, each grade being useful to its possessor, can be shown to exist; if further, the eye does vary ever so slightly, and the variations be inherited, which is certainly the case; and if variation or modification in the organ be ever useful to an animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, can hardly be considered real."
- Anyway, it doesn't really matter what Darwin did or said...he's just the guy who came up with the basic theoryukit
- no he's like Jesus 2.0 his word is unchanging and eternalPupsipu
- Well see the main difference between Darwin and Jesus is that Darwin actually wrote a book. And he was real.shitehawke
- mikotondria30
come on....
is there not ONE creationist willing to enlighten us all with the Revealed Truth of what this fossil ACTUALLY means, and not just what the minions in satans media and universities would WANT us to think, the liberal hounds. ?
- duckofrubber0
I'm disappointed in the lack of argument by now. There is WAY to much comity in this thread (not counting my brief misunderstanding earlier).
- what is there to argue?baseline_shift
- discipler's cape got stuck in the phone boothukit
- There is nothing to argue, but it's so much more fun, yes?duckofrubber
- it IS fun, yes.mikotondria3
- JazX0
- mistermik0
this is how we evolved and a glimpse into the future if you may:
monkeys > men > super men > super monkeys > men monkeys > super men monkeys
- At what point will our robot slaves overthrow us?shitehawke
- only monkey robots to look forward tomistermik
- Khurram0
Why duzn't sum1 just email flagellum and tell him bout dis thread?
- teleos0
Khurram - unfortunately I don't remember my password to that email address. Haven't been able to check it for ages.
Ardi is an exciting find. And of course it calls to mind Standish's Law: The media reports will hearld the overturning of our previous understanding of human evolution approximately once each six months, using “words to the effect of ‘this means rewriting the history of human evolution." (lol)
And so much for anti-human exceptionalists with this find:
http://www.firstthings.com/blogs…"Human exceptionalism received a boost today with the news that human beings apparently did not evolve from apes...I bring this up because some Darwinsists and other assorted materialists have attacked human exceptionalism on the basis that our supposed emergence from the great apes and/or our genetic closeness means that we should not think of ourselves as distinctive. I never thought that was in the least persuasive. What matters is what we are now, not what might have been millions of years ago or how we got here..."
"Take that 98.4 per cent, an oft-repeated figure that has been used to argue that chimps deserve human rights. True, Homo sapiens and Pan troglodytes share an extraordinary amount of genetic similarity – yet humans and mice share almost as much."
So... it's looking more like "devolution" happened. The non-Darwinian saltation which took place is demonstrating more and more that our alleged ancestors were more of a human biped type of creature... hmmmm.
- saltation = creative bursts. As opposed to gradualism.teleos
- teleos0
Note that the artist renderings have Ardi covered in fur and with ape-like (early hominid) facial features. Typical license taken here. We have fossilized bones and fragments of a skull.
- Khurram0
i'll bite. How does the fact that apes and humans have a much older ancestor than we thought equate to human "exceptionalism"?
Typical license taken her?
- teleos0
"the common ancestor of both humans and modern apes — was different from both, and apes have evolved just as much as humans have from that common ancestor, they said."
"Researchers concluded that both the human branch and the ape branch of the family tree have evolved significantly from its common ancestor, and chimps can no longer be thought of as a “proxy” for that common ancestor."
"I bring this up because some Darwinsists and other assorted materialists have attacked human exceptionalism on the basis that our supposed emergence from the great apes and/or our genetic closeness means that we should not think of ourselves as distinctive."
Of course we don't need a fossil to tell us we are distinct as humans. Consciousness, 1st person perspective, what philosophers call "qaulia", etc... make this clearly evident.
- in essence, because if indeed we did "evolve" from a proto-human, it wasn't a small feces flinging lemur type thingy.teleos
- what?? not a small face feces lemur type thing??? How can you conclude THAT from this skeleton?? lolKhurram
- ummm because it's more human in structure and looks nothing like a little lemur?teleos
- lol. Fool. At what chronological point in time do you think scientists think lemurs became monleys???Khurram
- Khurram0
Again, you are playing semantic games, this time with the word "exceptional."
How does the fact that humans and apes share a common ancestor much older than we thought equate to human "exceptionalism"?
- The author is saying this based on the fact that the earlier fossils were more "human", structurally, than later fossils.teleos
- One earlier fossil of one species they found which walked upright earlier than we thoughtKhurram
- again... "exceptionalism"?Khurram
- right, but it was markedly less "humanoid" structurally.teleos
- markedly less humanoid? are you saying later fossils are LESS humanoid? which SPECIFIC fossil do u mean?Khurram
- the australopithecinesteleos
- WHICH australopithecine fossil??Khurram
- teleos0
So the old-earth or framework-creationist could use this find to support the notion that, after the first man's rebellion against God occurred and sin was introduced into creation, some sort of de-volution took place, splitting into what are today's great apes and modern homo sapiens.
- d_rek0
I like jesus and monkeys.
- Khurram0
But you have no basis to make those conclusions on except trying to fit the evidence to your biblical dogma.
You said "it's looking more like "devolution" happened," positing it as fact proven by this skeleton rather than "creationists COULD say".
And i go back to my initial queery, how does it "boost" the case of human exceptionalism as the author came, since the only thing it shows is that humans may have evolved from a bipedal ancestor before we thought it did.
- Khurram0
this is pretty cool: