Ardi-Ardipithecus ramidus and human evolution

[SadieMack1]

Of old You laid the foundation of the earth, and the heavens are the work of You hands. They will perish, but You will endure; Yes, they will all grow old like a garment; Like a cloak You will change them and they will be changed. But You are the same, and Your years have no end. Psalm 102: 25-27. One point about evolution that seems to be overlooked is that when the creation evolves, the old creature no longer exists.

[countrygalcm]

ardi lived in the trees

[deadontime70]

humans and apes shared a common ancestor 6 or 7 milion yrs ago depending on who you asked than in the area of the rift valley we suddenly had to stand to get food and we started walking ,of course we were not there ,but thats what happened,oh and before we were apes we were fish than we came on land watch mr garrison interpation of human evolution

[deadontime70]

late sorry but they admit this was an ape not realtion to humans?

[BackInTheCage]

@deadontime70 Humans are apes.

[BackInTheCage]

@deadontime70 Humans are apes.

[tarik102001]

there is no contradiction between evoplution and religion!!!!!... why do atheist base their stupid ide aof the no god on the evolution? ... nothing in religions say how god created Adam ... !!!!

[RedlineMMA]

@tarik102001

Really??

It says all the animals were created instantaneously, & Eve was made from Adams rib.

everything know about science & history demolishes the fairytale stories of the bible.

[ronocko]

@tarik102001 ... are you serious or trolling? I'd just like to know.

and not all religions believe in Adam.

[afterray]

wow. this science is hard to ignore.

[cedricrlongreen]

Bonobos are creepy and almost human like 1:43

[Jonathanedward2010]

All religion is crap......we r primates.....evolved.......get over it ya bible goofballs.

[Superman10202]

If God was real than he should show himself. The Truth is we call us Humans butt we are animal like other animal on planet the diffrence is we are much smarter than them. 

[Cherivillberg]

@Superman10202 God reveals himself all day long and did come to this earth and you still don't see Him. It's not God that is missing it's that you aren't paying attention and not looking. He's everywhere.

[MartinJWillett]

We know we had ancestors, we're here. We can't know whether any fossil remains are those of an animal that has any descendants - all we know is that Ardi lived and died.

[Anon11674]

@MartinJWillett

You do realize that a fossil is just a representative of an entire species, right? Transitional lines don't trace individual descent. They trace descent by species. Whether that one individual ever bred is a moot point, and downright absurd to use as an argument.

[MartinJWillett]

@Anon11674 Does anybody realize such a thing? A fossil is a fossil of an individual. There is no way to know whether that individual was typical of their species, whether the species was common or whether the species died out or contributed to a later species. Just because it is of the right age to be an ancestor it does not follow that it is one. The only thing we know from a single fossil is that an individual attained a particular age and died.

[Anon11674]

@MartinJWillett

Severe mutations tend to be fairly obvious, and proper study can see whether an individual is a freak or a distinct species. Well-developed traits like effective wings or the ability to walk upright are Extremely unlikely to happen with one mutation, in one generation. Evolution doesn't work that way.

Branches do occur. And proper study figures out where a species fits in the family tree. Scientists revise the occasional errors when they find them, but huge errors are rare now

[Slanguaj]

@Anon11674 Have you seen oliver the chimp? He walked upright after what could have been one mutation.

[Anon11674]

@Slanguaj

I can tell just from a quick search there's all kinds of inexpert, sensationalized crap about him out there. Do you know a good, scientific study of his genes?

I didn't say such mutations are impossible. I said it's extremely unlikely that a well-developed trait will appear in one generation. This is no such jump. Common chimpanzees can already walk upright for a short time, as they're in that transition stage, and Bonobo chimpanzees are even better adapted than the common species.

[Anon11674]

@Slanguaj

Oliver was a trained creature, so who knows how much of his behavior was trained. He does appear to think he's human, which could explain his upright habit.

He was reportedly captured in the Congo, home to the Bonobos. I'm thinking he's simply a trained Bonobo, but that's just my inexpert opinion, from comparing him to them. Either way, his parental line is unknown so the 'one mutation' thing is moot, due to lack of knowledge.

[Slanguaj]

@Anon11674 He had some skull and apparently hip abnormalities. His head was proportionately too small for his body. Yeah I guess we can't observe his parents so we don't know that these changes occured in one generation. But after looking into the story, I considered that he might have been 'naturally' bipedal and that this change could have occured in one generation. Interesting thought is all.

[MartinJWillett]

@Anon11674 With thousands of fossils we can have confidence about a species. With a tooth, an eye socket and an inch of rib we can't be confident at all. But if a scientist was candid about the level of uncertainty and the weakness of the conclusions they would be unlikely to get further funding, so a tooth, an eye socket and an inch of rib suddenly is a species and a probable ancestor and a face looking out of a magazine cover.

[Anon11674]

@MartinJWillett

Credible scientists don't make up an entire species from a couple of random bone fragments. That is a creationist fabrication, yet one more lie from creationist leaders that they hand down to their faithful followers to parrot the world over.

I see now where your... huge level of skepticism comes from. Don't fall for creationist rhetoric. Look at the peer-reviewed scientific work, and the evidence which includes distinct species represented by fairly complete fossil skeletons.

[Anon11674]

@MartinJWillett

I'm sorry, but I'd be wasting my time discussing this matter with you any further, until you've learned how scientists actually work.

Goodbye, and I hope you make a serious effort at educating yourself on the matter.

[MartinJWillett]

@Anon11674 Maybe I should say exactly the same. Your faith is touching, but misguided.

[Anon11674]

@MartinJWillett

It seems you didn't understand about the individual and breeding thing. Scientists don't claim individual fossil skeletons were the ancestor of anything. They say the species that the individual represents may have been ancestral, or closely related to the direct ancestor species of whatever modern species. The more fossil species they find, and the more they improve scientific techniques, the more accurate the family trees become. It's really not hard to get.

[MartinJWillett]

@Anon11674 Many people have assumed I must be ignorant in the past. Do not mistake disagreement for ignorance, that is the mark of the arrogant.

We know we had ancestors, but we can never know if any particular bones represent a species which has surviving descendants. I can't see why that statement is giving you cause to argue or to conclude that I am ignorant. There is no difference between the bones of my grandmother and her childless sister, what works on the micro level works on the macro.

[Anon11674]

@MartinJWillett

I'm not claiming to know your level of knowledge. Your choice of words made me think you didn't understand what I was talking about with an individual breeding or not, not being as important a matter as you believe it is.

So-called 'macro evolution' is only 'micro evolution' on a larger scale, from longer time periods or stronger environmental pressures, no matter what opponents of evolutionary biology want to claim. There is no barrier from small-scale to large-scale change.

[MartinJWillett]

@Anon11674 Doesn't the phrase " what works on the micro level works on the macro" suggest that I get that, or are you so determined to assume that because you are arguing with me I must represent the enemy?

[Cypherus21]

If you suppose evolution, every extinct skeleton of primate species you find is automatically labeled as an ancestor, rather than the skeleton strictly representing a separate species having no genome relation to Human.

I am sure evolution will be more understood and refined if and when some more discoveries are made. But until then, it is just an interpretation of human origins, and one that cannot be tested like faith.

[byteresistor]

@Cypherus21 No one has ever claimed all primate fossils are human ancestors. You cannot refute something with a straw man.

"it is just an interpretation of human origins"

Evolution deals with all life on earth, not just humans.

"and one that cannot be tested like faith"

Faith can be tested? Since when? No don't tell me... the evidence for scripture being true is that the scripture says so?...

[Cypherus21]

@byteresistor.

I guess diverting to religious scripture is better than saying nothing when you don't have any good counter arguments to support evolution.

The problem with evolution is that it is entrenched incredibly unlikely coincidences, so you get backed into a corner and start looking more and more ridiculous when you argue that what humans are was all in part of some random series of fluke mutations that had the same luck of occurrence as someone winning the lottery 1000 times.

[TheSeventhSon]

@Cypherus21

So then, please prove that genetic change was not actually responsible for the existence of humans. We know that genes change over time. We have the fossil record to support the idea that organisms all evolved from simpler organisms. What evidence do you have that suggests that humans aren't actually the result of "incredibly unlikely coincidences"?

[byteresistor]

@Cypherus21 I pointed out you made a straw man argument against evolution. That will suffice for now. When you bring a genuine argument to the table then I may refute it in more detail.

And if you think evolution is dependant in too much chance then do you think postulating an even more complex answer (a designer out of space and time, a god) to life's complexity is going to make a good argument? But anyway, evolution is more than just random mutations, it's also about natural selection.

[demonella]

What a fantastic fossil. Finds like this are so exciting. So much preserved. Thrilling and beautiful.

[puncheex]

Lucy is an Australopithecus dated at about 3.1 mya. Ardi is an older Ramapthecus, dated at 4.4 mya. Both apparently walked upright, though Ardi had a big toe that would be useful for brachiating (tree walking), and Lucy did not. Neither knuckle-walked, afaik.

[desasterz]

Lucy cnuckewalked...

[jschem604]

i thought that she was named lucy

[zzzIdividedbyzerozzz]

@jschem604 I think Lucy is a "younger" link

[Sundriedpuppy]

@velvett-

Comparing the entire genome IS looking at the bigger picture. It's not so much the number of chromosomes as the content of the entire genome that signifies evolutionary lineage.

The fact that we have the same number of chromosomes as a deer is almost completely irrelevant, considering a very close relative to that deer (the Indian Muntjac) has 6-7 chromosomes, depending on gender.

And no, I didn't just know that. I was curious and Googled it. Hooray, technology! Hooray, humans!

[velvett37]

she looks like Bigfoot. I still say it is impossible for modern man to be an ape without that missing link. Everything has hair covering its body and then POOF! modern man, smaller head, no hair, shorter arms, lighter in weight and far wiser than any ape. Give me the missing links to the equation.

[minwu56]

missing link??? It's time !!!!

It took 1 million years to evolve to the modern human!!!

[albus23]

Ardi is a missing link.

[velvett37]

@albus23 I hardly doubt that Ardi is the missing link considering it was covered with hair and stood much taller than modern man. Perhaps it existed at the same time AS ape and man...but it in no way evolved into modern man. Walking upright does not prove evolution..it may simply be another discovery of a species.

[ThePaine9]

tottaly with you

[shorty962]

there are more then one missing link. I'll show you Homo Sapien Sapien Homo Sapien---------Cro Magnon Homo Sapien Idaltu Homo Rhodesiensis Homo Heidelbergensis Homo Cepranensis Homo Georgicus Homo Erectus Homo Antecessor Homo Ergaster Homo Habilis Homo Rudolfensis

[shorty962]

Australopithecus Garhi Australopithecus Anamensis Australopithecus Boisei Australopithecus Africanus Australopithecus Bahrelghazali Australopithecus Afarensis Ardipithecus Ramidus Ardipithecus Kadabba Kenyanthropus Platyops Sahelanthropus Tchadensis Pierolapithecus Catalaunicus Proconsul Africanus Aegyptopithecus Zeuxis

[STEPHENWRAYSFORD33]

Your understanding of evolution is a little confused I'm afraid. You say apes have lots of hair and humans don't, which is not true. Men shave everyday, if they didn't their face would have more hair than a monkeys after a while, men also have hair covering their chest and legs. Also even if humans didn't have body hair, some dogs no fur and some have lots. Also comparison of the humans and chimpanzees genes reveals a 98.5% match.

[velvett37]

@STEPHENWRAYSFORD33 ...if we have a 98.5% match with the genetics of a chimpanzee, then that leaves a 1.5 percentage difference. These may be qualitative differences among genomes. Humans have 46 chromosomes, chimps have 48. That being said, when it comes to chromosomes we are more closely related to a Chinese Mutjac (deer). You have to look at the whole picture, not just one part.

[JaMoond]

@velvett37

Muntiacus genome hasn't even been sequenced yet, so you are just talking out of your ass. Regardless of what you might imagine, Chimpanzees are the closest living relative in terms of both genetically and physiologically. We may have 1 less pair of chromsomes, but the actual genetic content hasn't been lost because one of the chimp chromosome is fused to our chromosome 2. Human genome project revealed that down to every last molecular sequence.

[FiverBeyond]

@velvett37

Well, we still have all that body hair, of course. The head shape and size can be seen to grow gradually as one progresses down through Ardi, Australopithecus, Homo Habilis, Homo Erectus, and Homo Sapiens. The rise of super-intelligence was fast in evolutionary terms, true, but it was very, very slow in terms of history, it was very slow... control of fire over 100,000 years ago... clothing, primitive tools... first drawings some tens of thousands of years ago, etc.

[puncheex]

@velvett37: Find a bigfoot first, then we'll talk about missing lonks to it.

[SpitfireOFatj]

Next time one of these religious nutcases asks, "What will it take for you to question evolution?" (As if science and evolution is a rival religion) just say, "Rabbits in the Paleozoic." IOW: Any MODERN animal in an extremely ancient era.

Doesn't happen. What is alive now wasn't around back then. It's ancient ANCESTOR was, but not the current species.

[DTHOMAS3904]

anybody notice that Tim white looks like Ardi without the facial hair?

[2marto2k10]

the only way meaning can be found is finding out why it exists

[dwolfcoach]

You can't make up you own science from a creationist web site. There is no function of these retroviruses, sorry this is directly observed. I will go to you site and I'll read, but why aren't they publishing to peer-reviewed publications? We both know the reason - they will be laughed at!

Mike, there is no chance that you and I could settle this on this forum, but at any time there is a publication with one of your "ID discoveries" please direct me to the article.

All the best my friend!

[dwolfcoach]

Mike, I check out your web site, wow. Now I see why you reject real science, they just plain obscure known facts.

I know we all believe what we're told, but this site is equivalent to the tobacco lobbying propaganda that told everyone that smoking didn't cause cancer. I'm sure am glad that wasn't true.

So if all the info on this web site is accurate, why don't you and your ID proponents win in court when this information is challenged? There has got to be an answer to all these defeats.

[MikeWDM]

Google NCBI PubMed ERV & expand NCBI results for a # of articles discussing ERV function, as well as PNAS(dot)org, also peer-reviewed. Would you endorse for publication any article you reviewed that had creationist/ID conclusions, or accept any creationist research published in journals reviewed by creationists, regardless of the methodology of the research? It doesn't make much sense to submit such articles for review by evolutionists. Peer review is only as good as the peer selection.

[dwolfcoach]

I would accept any result that DOES the rigorous testing procedures AND adheres to all the rules of the scientific method. ID skips all the steps and NEVER rejects its hypothesis, so no they're disqualified.

See, you can't reject any portion of your hypothesis, so you reject the "peer selection", Play by the rules!!!

[puncheex]

@MikeWDM: What would such a "creationist/ID conclusion" look like? Afaik, they have no experimental science backing up any of their "theories" (like specified complexity). Except for a hearty "the designer must have done it", what else would you expect from them? I'd personally have no qualms about doing so, but I have no idea if I'd even recognize it.

[thedman016]

uhh not sure what you meant by playground mine? im guessing and whats better than a fucking retard?

[thedman016]

hahaha fucking nerds you and your big and fancy words go and argue about something else

[mauvewolf]

Ardi shows that we developed bipedalism while living in the trees, not after moving to the open savanah as was thought for many decades. She shows through her teeth that our ancestors were less agressive than the primates and probably vegetarian. Ardi changes things dramatically. cool

[ShalomYal]

I hate the way the "news" covers these stories. No - Ardi does not change things dramatically. Ardi is just what we would have expected of a species that is between Lucy and our common ancestor with chimps.

[UsernameClayton]

If you watch the entire series [that the discovery channel put out] you would learn that we may have not evolved from chimps but from another type of primate.

It changes the way we think about evolution because we now have at least an idea of why we may have risen to bipedal locomotion, and it shifts the time frame back.

So it essentially helps attempt to answer a HUGE question in human evolution.

Just clarifying :)

[ShalomYal]

I did not say we evolved from chimps - read carefully I wrote, "common ancestor with chimps" Thanks anyway but your clarification was not necessary

[TheMidgetStomper]

faggots

[Nivlac1982]

I feel bad that there are people out there that don't believe in evolution. I think the religious right is guilty by making people think you have ot be a atheist to believe in evolution.

[littlelurk]

@Nivlac1982 thank you! finally someone who gets you can have both if u want. it doesn't have to be a big argument.

[BillWilliamsonSr]

@Nivlac1982 Where does your religion fit into the picture? Please, explain. How did God create Adam out of dirt and Eve out of Adam's rib if evidence from human evolution suggests that humans evolved from a genetically differnt ancestor with different features and properties than humans?

[shannon1664]

@Nivlac1982 Where do you get the idea that the religious right says any such thing? Some preachers say that, but not all of them. What you just did was put an awful lot of people into a pile, labeled the pile, and sat back content. Racists do exactly the same thing.

[russcnps]

Science must presume an all-natural cause. Otherwise it would be religion.

[russcnps]

Mike, why isn't tax-free status for religious institutions and freedom of religion (assuming you are in the U.S.) enough power for you already? Why do you feel the need to attack or obfuscate the scientific method? No one is taking away your own faith.

[MikeWDM]

That isn't my argument at all. My point is that speculation in lieu of testability (which should precede a conclusion) involved in common descent in fact sidesteps scientific method.

[russcnps]

Your calling scientific hypothesis and theory speculation does not make it less scientific. Evolution theory is regularly tested with new physical evidence. Nothing says there is no common ancestor yet.

[MikeWDM]

Nothing says there is no common ancestor yet. Nothing confirms common ancestry either, so why should anyone be burdened to disprove a claim that has itself not been proven? Anyway, points are coming up repeatedly that Ive already addressed/refuted, and its clear that the limits of naturalistic vision wont allow you to see beyond mere physical aspects of the universe. But I do appreciate your time in this dialog, its been interesting. :) Thanks for the discussion.

[sads404]

Mike

You should really look into the genetics. ERVs, pseudogenes and transpoons. Human chromosome # 2 is also of interest. All of these provide even more evidence that support common ancestry. And BTW, science does not (can not) prove things. Facts and evidence *support* a theory never prove it. Proof is a mathematical concept.

There is no other theory that better explains the facts we see than that of Evolution at this point in time.

[russcnps]

sads404, I stand corrected to the extent I have been using the terms prove, proof and disprove with respect to theory. Mike or the person seeking to replace Evolution theory with another one need to show us a theory originally supported by facts and evidence only, not scripture. Until then, evolution remains the best theory as originally formed by and supported with the facts and physical evidence.

[russcnps]

Mike, thank you too for the discussion. I am comfortable with anybody having a religious vision. My problem is with those who call religion science. By definition, scientific theory cannot be religious theory.

[djacobox372]

I wonder how many scientist consider the possibility that apes evolved from a more human like common ancestor. Apes may be more "evolved" then humans.

[russcnps]

I agree.

[charlyganjaboy]

MikeWDM: "Isnt mathematics demonstrated by repeatable experiments (i.e. 2+2=4 every single time)?"

No. If you understand the concept of "2" and the concept of "adding" you don't need an experiment to prove "2 + 2 = 4", much less do you need to repeat it many times.

But just for the sake of argument let's give it a shot:

2 + 2 = 4

2 + 2 = 4

2 + 2 = 5!

OMG!

[MikeWDM]

I see... So one can claim an understanding of a process (like, say, evolution) but not like where the evidence leads and simply change the answer, even though it doesn't add up.

[russcnps]

MikeWDM, if you can tell us a theory of the history of life that is based on more reason and scientific methodology than evolution, then by all means do so.

[MikeWDM]

The origin and sustenance of life far better fits the model of creation described in Genesis, which can account for life's beginnings, the variety of life we observe today, the presence of morality, reason, logic, and uniformity in nature—all often taken for granted yet necessary components of scientific methodology. Neither evolution or abiogenesis can do any of this.

[russcnps]

Now we finally come to the heart of our disagreement. Scripture is not science and your statements are merely conclusory. I am glad scripture can provide all of the answers to your questions right here and right now.

[MikeWDM]

How is scripture not science? Have you found that what you clearly observe in the natural universe contradicts the Bible, leading you to separate it from science? Ardis discovery fits very well with the description of mankind and various animals as separate kinds in Genesis 1. Her features are ape-like yet different from modern apes, making it logical to conclude she is an extinct species. Linking her to humans is an added presumption based only on the fact that ToE requires more such links.

[charlyganjaboy]

"Pi = 3" - The Bible

[russcnps]

Scientific hypothesis starts from physical observation by humans that becomes more and more sophisticated over time due to improved study through technology, trial and error. A group of hypotheses is scientific theory. From the point of view of science, scripture includes only subjective observations made thousands of years ago.

[mikeoramy]

"From the point of view of science, scripture includes only subjective observations...".

Actually, science has no point of view, scientists do, and there are many scientists who view scripture as authoritative and God-inspired, a first hand account of creation. This is a bold claim, but it withstands scrutiny as its account of creation, a global flood, uniformity in nature, our own use of logic and sense of morality—things required to actually do science—fit with what we observe around us.

[russcnps]

Such scientists are arguing a religious point of view, not a scientific one which necessarily derives from physical evidence only. To the extent anyone says religion is science, that person is being dishonest, not bold.

[russcnps]

The fact that scripture has already provided answers to all questions means it cannot be science. Science always and must change with each new piece of hard physical evidence.

[TurkiyeAteistBirligi]

What people like Mike are actually saying is that basically A super natural creator "god" have created Adam and from his rib he created Eve, then their kids fuck each other to produce rest of the world. And later there was a flood and Polar bears, Rain-forest Jaguars and all other billions of animals including dinosaurs traveled 10,000 miles to middle east by walking so they would be on a boat. And all this happened only 4-5000 years ago. That alone kicks science ass, right Mike?

[MikeWDM]

It's interesting that you were the first to mention God. I was drawing a conclusion based on the evidence presented in the video, and you were making an assumption based on an unjustifiable presupposition.

[charlyganjaboy]

Mike, ru an anthropologist? if so, what are your credentials? for how long have you been studying fossils? have you studied fossils like this for 15 years like the researchers did before announcing their finds?

[charlyganjaboy]

Mike: "Reasonable observation doesn't require credentials, but it requires reason."

I agree, but in most cases (all cases, if you only consider people alive in the XXI century) people who reject evolution have neither...

[MikeWDM]

Isn't it reasonable to expect that a claim that all life has arisen via step-wise progression in complexity from a single cell via undirected methods be supported by some type of observable mechanism, or more foundationally, the spontaneous generation of life from non-life correspond with some natural law? Evolution or other naturalistic theories offer neither.

[charlyganjaboy]

First of all evolution does not really require observation to be proven. It is a process that can be understood using only reason, just like mathematics. But even if you did need observations, the evidence for evolution is overwhelming.

P.S. I like your spelling.

[MikeWDM]

I would love to see: 1) a line of reasoning that proves evolution without observable evidence; 2) overwhelming evidence for it that isnt based on speculation. Isnt mathematics demonstrated by repeatable experiments (i.e. 2+2=4 every single time)? By contrast, ToE changes with each new major discovery, and the required addition of vast new information coding for complexity cant be shown on paper or in a lab. Evolution also cant account for the existence of human reasoning to begin with.

[russcnps]

What's your evidence for these conclusions?

[MikeWDM]

As stated in my original comment, the evidence shows this fossil to be a "missing link" only by the presupposition of common ancestry, a theory that is weak to begin with. We all know extinction happens as the fossil record shows us many organisms that are not alive today. Assuming Ardi's remains are arranged in a remotely similar structure as when it was alive, without evolutionary speculation, it makes sense that it is a variety of ape that is no more.

[russcnps]

Any "weakness" in the theory of a common ancestry between chimps, gorillas, Ardi, Lucy and us is merely because we humans don't have all of the physical evidence. Science knows it is incomplete and still gathering information; it must be or it would not be science. What physical evidence can you present that humans are not related to primates, including other hominids? Who told you Ardi is an ape but not a hominid? Oh, that's right, scripture tells you the answer. I'm so happy for you.

[MikeWDM]

What physical evidence can you present that humans are not related to primates, including other hominids? No more than I can for a Schwinn not being the predecessor of a Cadillac. I shouldnt have to, because the onus is on the evolutionist to prove an actual link in the first place. They have some similar features, but there is a LACK of compelling evidence that one produced the other through successful reproductive generations.

[charlyganjaboy]

That's because cars are machines incapable of sex. Never the less, in memetic terms, a Schwinn and a Cadillac are related. They both evolved from the first car.

[russcnps]

Of course the Ardi species is extinct. Ardi could be our ancestor; we don't know yet. Centuries of scientific study of the physical evidence, including DNA, proves that humans are primates. Shared DNA proves all mammals share a common direct ancestor.

[MikeWDM]

Ardi also "could" have been an Amway rep, but again, why pursue such an unlikely hypothesis? Common physical features make sense when you consider a common Designer. DNA similarities aren't conclusive in proving common descent either. The human genome has been fully sequenced, whereas only .03% of the chimp genome has been sequenced—nowhere near a valid comparison, even with 86-95% similarity (depending on how it's calculated). Humans also share about 50% of our DNA with bananas.

[russcnps]

Again, any physical evidence is better than none at all. To disprove evolution, you must show us new physical evidence, not the fact that the theory is inconclusive.  It am quite proud we share 50% of our DNA with bananas. New evidence is indicating plants are much more sophisticated than humans traditionally thought.

[MikeWDM]

No offense to bananas at all. :) As it happens, there is strong physical evidence for the Biblical account of creation (of which a plain reading does not allow for biological evolution) and the Bible as a reliable source, centered on inconsistencies in the fossil record, fulfilled prophesy and manuscript evidence that is too much to flesh out here. The character limitations make it cumbersome. But I'd be more than happy to discuss it via personal messaging, just send me one if you're interested.

[russcnps]

Mike, evidence that supports biblical scripture must necessarily pre-date and be the foundation for its writing, otherwise it is circular reasoning. Your evidence needs to disproves evolution.

[MikeWDM]

2) ...But ToE discards this and instead speculates an all-natural cause, then tries to build the foundation AFTER the building by looking for a feasible mechanism, quite circularly, to make it work. This trades scientific method for blind faith, which by secular standards actually qualifies it for a religion. The problem is not science, it is science done poorly.

[russcnps]

No, Mike, it is not blind faith or religion.  It is based on examination of physical evidence only. Provide us with a new scientific theory based on physical evidence or disprove it by physical evidence. Don't argue against science with religion.

[russcnps]

Painstaking physical examination of thousands of living species and the fossil record in a scientific manner to form the basis of scientific hypotheses and theory qualifies as science, not religion. The theory started with physical evidence, not scripture. No way, no how is it religion.

[MikeWDM]

The theory started with physical evidence... In Origins, Darwin imagined virtually boundless (magic?) potential to natural selection while observing variety in natural life that was already consistent w/ the variety created "kinds" would produce. Genetics arrived along w/ understanding that DNA sequences are finite, confirming creation, yet ToE hypotheses continue to be based on the premise of infinite potential w/out demonstrating how. There is a finite # of ways I can state the same problem.

[russcnps]

Excuse me? What evidence can you provide that Ardi could have been an Amway rep? I'm all ears.

[russcnps]

Your conclusions that Ardi is an ape and not more closely related to humans than a chimp are based only on you your own personal visual perception of the drawings you see before you. There is a lot more to understanding the physical evidence than that. Examining physical evidence through the prism of scripture is circular reasoning, and absolutely not scientific method.

[MikeWDM]

Circular reasoning actually must end when you appeal to an ultimate standard. If an infinite, all-knowing and all-powerful God actually did create the universe as described in Scripture, He would have to be outside of physical nature (in order to create nature) and He would be that ultimate standard. If I may ask, what is your ultimate standard?

[russcnps]

Mike, your argument is purely religious. I don't care what your personal religious beliefs are. You are trying to change the subject from your intellectual dishonest claim that scripture is science. I won't take your bait.

[MikeWDM]

Like many, you've been conditioned to believe that because the Bible is widely regarded as a religious book it has no value historically or otherwise. Explain, then, how your sense of morality—which you display by defending a position you believe to be right—evolved chemically. Explain the origin of nature without appealing to a supernatural Cause...

[russcnps]

Mike, now you are putting words in my mouth. I never said the Bible has no historical or non-religious value. I never said science can explain everything conclusively. The point is that science is a process, not a religion. Science raises new questions as much as it answers old ones.

[UsernameClayton]

There have been studying done on evolution and morality. I'm not the one to explain it but it kind of boils down to the fact that its more beneficial to be part of society than to be alone.

And its hard to really establish a society without morals.

You can see it in the animal kingdom as well. Why don't piranhas eat each other? You religious people argue animals don't have souls.

So whats preventing any other groups of animals from murdering one another?

[MikeWDM]

Animals don't "murder" because they were created without a sense of morality. They kill in response to hard-wired instincts for food (certain food—generally not their own kind—by design to further their kind), defense and survival, but they don't kill/not kill out of a sense of right and wrong, which is a key difference between instinct in animals and morality in humans.

[dwolfcoach]

Mike, Your understading of science and its methodologies is purposefully and willfully obscured. You do realize that evolution is supported by millions of pieces of evidence and many branches of science, not to mention sophisticated instruments of measure? You also realize that over 200,000 peer reviewed publications also support this?

Your religious view point has no evidence, no tools of measure and no peer reviewed publications. So please explain how your claim is "scientific"! EVIDENCE

[MikeWDM]

I understand that evolution is supported by plenty of speculation and a mechanism that's never been demonstrated or identified. The millions of years deemed necessary to allow it is supported by plenty of sophisticated dating methods that yield inconsistent results and rely on absurdly circular reasoning. And "no peer reviewed publications" is simply untrue. Even WITHOUT the concurrence of the creation account with the present universe, ToE is a building in search of a foundation.

[dwolfcoach]

Mike, it HAS been observed and radiometric dating is quite accurate. The foundation is deep and wide, not to mention unambiguous. So answer my question, where is your scientific evidence? You can have a religious view point, but you can't have a scientific one because you have no alternative mechanism and no evidence to support it.

We may have competing conclusions, but we don't have competing hypotheses, your view is totally unsupported by any evidence, observation or prediction-NONE!

[MikeWDM]

Dwolf: If I have no evidence, neither do you. We all study the same universe, life, fossils, cells... We just have different interpretations of the same evidence based on differing worldviews. I presuppose creation because what I observe in all applicable sciences best fits with the accounts in Genesis. You presuppose evolution because... well, you may have reasons. If you want to focus on a particular area of debate, pick one. You may use PM if you prefer that over the limitations of this area.

[dwolfcoach]

Mike, Come on, neither of us HAVE the evicence, it is presented through the scientific community. We only know of evidence that is availed to us. You are not qualified to peer-review the evidence and "interpret" it. Your Genesis account is RELIGION, not science and the main reason why you are losing this culture war in the courts. Science is NOT conflicted in the least over this theory.

If we didn't evolve, what is the mechanism for all this genetic speciation? Just answer that question.

[MikeWDM]

Have...is availed to us... Even if Merriam-Webster concurred on that definition of evidence, wed be arguing semantics. You've offered ad hominem and a faulty appeal to authority (logic doesn't require credentials), and a classic strawman by misrepresenting the argument as one over religion. I'm happy to answer your question, but beyond that, and no offense, your tendency toward personal attack and logical fallacy leads me to think further debate probably wont be productive.

[dwolfcoach]

As for phylogenetic taxonomy and all the genomic comparisons that support this, it is a slam dunk. Sorry, but w/o a strong background in these disciplines your qualifications ARE at issue, so this not attacking you personally.

Answer the issue of chromosome 2, ERV's in human and chimp genomes, and Ardi's 4.4 million year old dating. How can you argue this with real science?

[MikeWDM]

Ardis speculated 4.4m age comes from the assumed age of the volcanic rock layers above and below her. Historical science doesnt tell us the unobservable conditions present when the rock was formed or the environmental conditions that would have effected it, so there are too many assumptions that radiometric dating relies on, and far too many anomalies in the results to accurately establish the first standard of rock age.

[MikeWDM]

Chromosome 2 is evidence for a fusion event at some point in the human line and that's it. It's equally compatible with separate ancestry. Saying it shows common ancestry is special pleading.

On ERVs, regulatory function has been discovered in a number of them, which is actually a creationist prediction. Relating to chimps & humans, see Endogenous Retroviruses (ERVs) and Common Descent at detectingdesign(dot)com. Link is on the right side under New/Updated Topics.

[dwolfcoach]

Mike, I'll give you credit where it is due, you've done some homework.

So the "fusion event" is not a deletion/addition of genetic information? Did you compare their genomes? Special pleading, ha, that's a stretch.

ERV's inserting into the DNA through reverse transcription. We can SEE them form after it infects a cell and its sequence is exactly the same as other ERV genomes. Viruses are produced from ERV's not the other way around. ERV's are mutated and rendered non functional.

[kandtell]

"Chromosome 2 is evidence for a fusion event at some point in the human line and that's it."

Sorry, that's not right.

Human Chromosome 2 has the same genes in the same places as 2 ape chromosomes shared by the other great apes.

Obviously there is some variation, you would expect to see some, but you can match the bases which have not changed so well that common ancestry is undeniable.

Unless you want to believe in a creator who made it like that to fool us on purpose!

[MikeWDM]

Dwolf: Speciation doesn't account for substantive increases in genetic information that specify for the increase in functional complexity ToE needs. Speciation (even rapid, i.e. allotropic), hybridization & diversity fit and are even what wed expect to see in the creation model, where genetic info from the original created kinds is hereditarily sorted/lost, pressured by natural selection & subject to mutational defects, resulting in reproductive incompatibility in the case of speciation.

[dwolfcoach]

Where is my ad hominem? Appeal to authority? If you're arguing that evolution, as a matter of fact, has accounted for genetic change over 3.5 billion years, then we can continue. This issue is NOT a logical discussion w/o a good background in genetics, geology, biology and archaeolgy. There is no strawman, because I'm not misrepresenting your conclusion. Speciation absolutely does account for an increase and decrease in genetic information. You sound quite qualified to interpret the bible...

[MikeWDM]

If murder and other wrong behavior removes us from society, and belonging to it has greater survival benefit, shouldn't we, as a highly advanced and intelligent humans, have left wrong-doing behind by now, if evolution were involved?

[puncheex]

You seem to think that evolution is "aimed" at some goal, such as moral living. In reality, evolution's only goal is survival of the genome.  Quite often moral behavior is not optimal to that goal, requiring self-sacrifice and long term thinking. Evolution doesn't seek for the best, it seeks for "good enough". Whatever moral proclivities we've developed may be totally antithetical to our genetic heritage, a completely un-intended consequence of intelligence.

[MikeWDM]

...Explain how an explosion eons ago produced such uniformity in nature today that allows consistency in earth's orbit, seasons, predictability of a commet's path, or assurance that experiments done the same way yield the same results, without Genesis 8:22.

[russcnps]

Show us physical evidence, Mike. Not scripture. To the extent we don't have physical evidence yet, we can't explain it. If you want religion to explain it, that is fine. It's not science.

[russcnps]

No, Mike, the onus is on you or the person seeking to disprove the scientific theory to provide new physical evidence that disproves it in a scientific manner. Scripture, intuition and circular reasoning are not physical evidence. You seem to be confusing theory and fact.

[rrcczz]

yes you should mike

[callmemissbea]

Stfu mike.

[vihitman2]

ya. Stfu mike

[MikeWDM]

Apart from evolutionary speculation, there is no reason to conclude that Ardi is part of mans ancestry. Basing conclusions on observations of the actual find and not the creative arrangement of bones and artistic rendering, Ardi is more likely an extinct ape species without any link to humans. Two vertebrae and a partial femur (if that is in fact a femur) does little demonstrate height, and the lack of foot arches and very little pelvis, it's a stretch to even say that she stood upright.

[russcnps]

So what?  This is still one of the paleontological finds of the century and doesn't deserve your cynicism. Try crawling under a rock and opening your eyes to what you see.

[MikeWDM]

It's an interesting find, but what makes it one of the paleontological finds of the century? What shows that Ardi is our ancestor? Because they tell you it is? There's no evidence brought forth in this report to demonstrate human ancestry. If there was substantial evidence for that "under a rock", I would think that would be important enough to mention.

[russcnps]

I am saying it does not matter if Ardi is our ancestor. Neanderthals may not be our ancestor but they are still vitally important to undertstanding human evolution. I trust hundreds of paleontologists, anthropologists and other scientists in countries around the world to announce a new hominid (whether or not there is any direct human ancestry) after years of painstaking research. Science will always ask as many questions as it answers.

[DarwinsFriend]

I can understand why, folks that do this for a living, refuse to waste their resource (time, attention, breath) on reactionary fools - steeped in their silly dogma and so-called "traditions."

They politely tell these to simply piss off and go the Hell away. Brilliant way to handle trash.