Discussion:
Outraged Creationists Ready To Go On More Shooting Sprees!!! Ancient Infant Ape Skull Sheds Light on the Ancestor of All Humans and Living Apes
Add Reply
Kurt (Sphincter) Schlichter
2017-08-10 23:01:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/08/ancient-infant-ape-
skull-
sheds-light-ancestor-all-humans-and-living-apes

*Ancient Infant Ape Skull Sheds Light on the Ancestor of All
Humans and Living Apes* by Michael Price
Aug. 9, 2017

Anthropologists have waited decades to find the complete
cranium of a Miocene ape from Africa -- one that lived in the
hazy period before the human lineage split off from the common
ancestors we share with chimpanzees some 7 million years ago.
Now, scientists in Kenya have found their prize at last: an
almost perfectly preserved skull roughly the size of a
baseball. The catch? It’s from an infant. That means that
although it can give scientists a rough idea of what the common
ancestor to all living apes and humans would have looked like,
drawing other meaningful conclusions could be challenging.

“This is the sort of thing that the fossil record loves to do
to us,” says James Rossie, a biological anthropologist at the
State University of New York in Stony Brook who wasn’t
involved with the study. “The problem is that we learn from
fossils by comparing them to others. When there are no other
infant Miocene ape skulls to which to make those comparisons,
your hands are tied”.

The remarkably complete skull was discovered in the Turkana
Basin of northern Kenya 3 years ago. As the sun sank behind the
Napudet Hills west of Lake Turkana, primate paleontologist
Isaiah Nengo of De Anza College in Cupertino, California, and
his team started walking back to their jeep. Kenyan fossil
hunter John Ekusi raced ahead to smoke a cigarette. Suddenly he
began circling in place. When Nengo caught up, he saw a
dirt-clogged eye socket staring up at him. “There was this
skull just sticking out of the ground,” Nengo recalls. “It
was incredible because we had been going up and down that path
for weeks and never noticed it”.

The team carefully extracted the fossil from the rocky ground
using small dental picks and brushes. Nengo knew immediately it
was a primate skull, but that he wouldn’t learn much more
until he and colleagues performed a more sophisticated
analysis.

At the Noble Gas Laboratory at Rutgers University in New
Brunswick, New Jersey, researchers measured argon
isotopes—which decay at a fixed, predictable rate—within
the fossil’s rock layer, revealing that it was about 13
million years old. Back then, the dry, rocky landscape of
today’s Turkana Basin was a lush rainforest.

Although the fossil looks a bit like a gibbon skull on first
blush, Nengo says, its dental pattern and teeth shape suggest
its closest relatives are other Miocene fossil primates from
the genus *Nyanzapithecus*, also found in Kenya. Yet its molars
are much larger than those of the known nyanzapithecines,
indicating a new species. The researchers named it *N. alesi*,
or Alesi for short, after the Turkana word for “ancestor”.

Extremely sensitive x-ray imaging performed at the European
Synchrotron Radiation Facility in Grenoble, France, allowed the
team to count growth lines in the fossil’s unerupted adult
teeth like tree rings, telling them Alesi was about 485 days
(or 1 year and 4 months) old when it died. The x-rays also
revealed the presence of bony ear tubes in the skull, which act
as a balance organ. Primatologists have long debated whether
the Nyanzapithecus genus belonged to the ape or monkey line,
but the presence of these tubes, combined with the size and
shape of the teeth, solidly mark Alesi -- and by extension the
other nyanzapithecines -- as apes
[http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v548/n7666/full/nature234
5
6.html?foxtrotcallback=true], the researchers report today in
'Nature'. What’s more, they claim, the ear tubes present
strong evidence that it’s an evolutionary cousin to the
ancestral line of apes from which humans and living apes
derive.

That could help answer a long-standing question in primate
evolution: Did the common ancestor to living apes and humans
evolve in Africa or Eurasia? Nengo says the new finding
supports an African origin. “Africa has been acting like a
petri dish for millions of years, conducting experiments in
evolution,” he says. “Humans and our close ape relatives
are just the latest evolutionary experiments to come out of
that petri dish.”

David Begun, an anthropologist at the University of Toronto in
Canada, isn’t convinced. He points to the fact that fossil
hominines—a group whose descendants include African apes and
humans—have been found in Europe dating to 12.5 million years
ago, but they don’t conclusively show up in the African
fossil record until 7 million years ago. To him, that suggests
the common ancestor evolved in Europe before heading back into
Africa. The discovery of N. alesi does nothing to change that.
“*Nyanzapithecus* is an early ape,” Begun says. “Whether
it’s the closest thing we know to the last common ancestor...
is questionable.” ----------


Another step forward in understanding ourselves.

. . .
Andrew
2017-08-11 00:17:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Kurt (Sphincter) Schlichter
Another step forward in understanding ourselves.
If you want to understand our origins, it helps to understand
that there is no mechanism for us to have evolved from some
lower life form to ourselves via the fantasized evolutionary
pathway.

Therefore the article you posted would be properly noted
to be labeled as fake news and fake science .

"To take a line of fossils and claim that they represent a
lineage is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested,
but an assertion that carries the same validity as a bed
time story--amusing, perhaps even instructive, but not
scientific

"From our vantage point in the present, we arrange fossils
in an order that reflects gradual acquisition of what we
see in ourselves. We do not seek the truth; we create it
after the fact, to suit our own prejudices."

"Many paleontologists believe that ancestor/descendent
lineages can be traced from the fossil record, and my
book is intended to debunk this view..old-style, traditional
evolutionary biology -- the type that feels it must tell a
story, and is therefore more appealing to news reporters
and makers of documentaries -- is unscientific.

"New fossil discoveries are fitted into this preexisting
story. We call these new discoveries "missing links", as
if the chain of ancestry and descent were a real object
for our contemplation, and not what it really is: . . . . .
a completely human invention created after the fact,
shaped to accord with human prejudices.... Each fossil
represents an isolated point, with no knowable
connection to any other given fossil, and all float
around in an overwhelming sea of gaps."
~ Henry Gee, Senior editor, "Nature"

It's about time you folk esteemed truth
of greater worth than fantasized stories.
Scout
2017-08-11 03:11:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Kurt (Sphincter) Schlichter
Another step forward in understanding ourselves.
If you want to understand our origins, it helps to understand that there
is no mechanism for us to have evolved from some
lower life form to ourselves via the fantasized evolutionary
pathway.
Ok, so exactly what pathway can you find evidence of to explain how and why
we exist as we do today.

and don't try asserting fantasized processes which you have no evidence of,
or you will be in the same boat as you claim that evolution is.
Wally W.
2017-08-11 11:46:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Scout
Post by Kurt (Sphincter) Schlichter
Another step forward in understanding ourselves.
If you want to understand our origins, it helps to understand that there
is no mechanism for us to have evolved from some
lower life form to ourselves via the fantasized evolutionary
pathway.
Ok, so exactly what pathway can you find evidence of to explain how and why
we exist as we do today.
and don't try asserting fantasized processes which you have no evidence of,
or you will be in the same boat as you claim that evolution is.
False comparison.

Evolution claims to be science that is evidence-based.

Theistic creation claims the appearance of humans was a miracle.

Greenies claim the existence of *other* humans is a curse.
Scout
2017-08-13 04:41:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Wally W.
Post by Scout
Post by Kurt (Sphincter) Schlichter
Another step forward in understanding ourselves.
If you want to understand our origins, it helps to understand that there
is no mechanism for us to have evolved from some
lower life form to ourselves via the fantasized evolutionary
pathway.
Ok, so exactly what pathway can you find evidence of to explain how and why
we exist as we do today.
and don't try asserting fantasized processes which you have no evidence of,
or you will be in the same boat as you claim that evolution is.
False comparison.
No, perfectly valid comparison. If you're telling me they are wrong, then
you should have evidence that shows proof of another means.
Post by Wally W.
Evolution claims to be science that is evidence-based.
Are you saying your claims aren't based on evidence?
Post by Wally W.
Theistic creation claims the appearance of humans was a miracle.
Yep, that seems to be your proof. Point at the sky and say "He did it"
(HDI).

Why did the flower bloom? (HDI)

Why did the bridge collapse? (HDI)

Amazing curiousity there, you assert to know the answer before you even ask
the question.

Whatever you want to ask about....(HDI).

Why does the light turn on? (HDI).
Post by Wally W.
Greenies claim the existence of *other* humans is a curse.
I'm more concerned about your claims, that what you claim others believe.

So.....once again....other than pointing at a being who's even existence
hasn't been proven....what do you have to back up your claims on why and how
man is here?
Wally W.
2017-08-13 05:00:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Scout
Post by Wally W.
Post by Scout
Post by Kurt (Sphincter) Schlichter
Another step forward in understanding ourselves.
If you want to understand our origins, it helps to understand that there
is no mechanism for us to have evolved from some
lower life form to ourselves via the fantasized evolutionary
pathway.
Ok, so exactly what pathway can you find evidence of to explain how and why
we exist as we do today.
and don't try asserting fantasized processes which you have no evidence of,
or you will be in the same boat as you claim that evolution is.
False comparison.
No, perfectly valid comparison.
Yes, it is a false comparison.
Post by Scout
If you're telling me they are wrong,
I'm telling you that evolution is faith-based because it can't produce
the missing links.
Post by Scout
then
you should have evidence that shows proof of another means.
False demand.

It's like the greenies screeching about global warming and claiming it
is due to human emissions of CO2. If one is a "denier" and doesn't
accept their correlation (that is inconsistent and over a short time
span) then they will demand, "What else could it beeeee?"
Post by Scout
Post by Wally W.
Evolution claims to be science that is evidence-based.
Are you saying your claims aren't based on evidence?
They aren't based on *scientific* evidence.

Evolution claims to be based on scientific evidence. It is not. It is
faith-based.
Post by Scout
Post by Wally W.
Theistic creation claims the appearance of humans was a miracle.
Yep, that seems to be your proof. Point at the sky and say "He did it"
(HDI).
Why did the flower bloom? (HDI)
Why did the bridge collapse? (HDI)
It might have been because of some bad calcuations; or the contractor
might have cut corners.
Post by Scout
Amazing curiousity there, you assert to know the answer before you even ask
the question.
You are imagining what I know.
Post by Scout
Whatever you want to ask about....(HDI).
Why does the light turn on? (HDI).
Post by Wally W.
Greenies claim the existence of *other* humans is a curse.
I'm more concerned about your claims, that what you claim others believe.
Be as concerned as you choose to be.
Post by Scout
So.....once again....other than pointing at a being who's even existence
hasn't been proven....
What do you mean "proven?"
Post by Scout
what do you have to back up your claims on why and how
man is here?
The case for theistic creation is at least as good as the case for the
faith-based assertions about evolution.
Melzzzzz
2017-08-13 05:10:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Wally W.
The case for theistic creation is at least as good as the case for the
faith-based assertions about evolution.
It is not. Evolution explains how it happens. Theistic creaton does not
explains anything. `God willed into existence` is fairytale.
It does not even says how.
--
press any key to continue or any other to quit...
Andrew
2017-08-13 07:18:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Melzzzzz
Post by Wally W.
The case for theistic creation is at least as good
as the case for the faith-based assertions about
evolution.
It is not. Evolution explains how it happens.
That is true. The problem is, that it explains it
by taking the gullible listener into the realm of
fantasy.
Post by Melzzzzz
Theistic creaton does not explains anything.
It explains the impossibility of life creating
itself.
Post by Melzzzzz
`God willed into existence` is fairytale.
It does not even says how.
How? By act of Creation.

Your alternative is to join the gullible masses who
blindly accept origin myths that are concocted to
sound scientific, but are in fact fantasized stories.
Scout
2017-08-13 08:27:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Andrew
Post by Melzzzzz
Post by Wally W.
The case for theistic creation is at least as good as the case for the
faith-based assertions about evolution.
It is not. Evolution explains how it happens.
That is true. The problem is, that it explains it
by taking the gullible listener into the realm of fantasy.
Sort as you're suggesting the listener do with your claims of creation?
Post by Andrew
Post by Melzzzzz
Theistic creaton does not explains anything.
It explains the impossibility of life creating itself.
Post by Melzzzzz
`God willed into existence` is fairytale.
It does not even says how.
How? By act of Creation.
Your alternative is to join the gullible masses who blindly accept origin
myths that are concocted to sound scientific, but are in fact fantasized
stories.
Siri Cruise
2017-08-13 10:20:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Andrew
It explains the impossibility of life creating
itself.
Theories of evolution do not explain the origin of life. That's coverred by
abiogenesis hypotheses. Theories of evolution explain how life evolves to old
and new forms.

Theories of evolution remain just as valid if you assume the creation of the
first life was divine intervention.
--
:-<> Siri Seal of Disavowal #000-001. Disavowed. Denied. Deleted. @
'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.' /|\
Free the Amos Yee one. This post / \
Yeah, too bad about your so-called life. Ha-ha. insults Islam. Mohammed
Scout
2017-08-13 08:26:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Melzzzzz
Post by Wally W.
The case for theistic creation is at least as good as the case for the
faith-based assertions about evolution.
It is not. Evolution explains how it happens. Theistic creaton does not
explains anything. `God willed into existence` is fairytale.
It does not even says how.
Exactly.

Science addresses 'how'
theology claims 'who'

They aren't necessarily contradictory.

Because I'm not aware that any details exist for exactly what method(s) God
used in creation.
Siri Cruise
2017-08-13 10:15:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Melzzzzz
Post by Wally W.
The case for theistic creation is at least as good as the case for the
faith-based assertions about evolution.
It is not. Evolution explains how it happens. Theistic creaton does not
explains anything. `God willed into existence` is fairytale.
It does not even says how.
Creationism can be made consistent. The Church of Last Thursdayism is consistent
and explains everything. Whether you accept either or neither is up to you and
you alone.


Oh, and eventually you come to a bottom where the only explanation is 'because'.
Why do fermions have spin? Because. Why should a god's speech create reality?
Because. Why do you recreate the world every week? Because.
--
:-<> Siri Seal of Disavowal #000-001. Disavowed. Denied. Deleted. @
'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.' /|\
Free the Amos Yee one. This post / \
Yeah, too bad about your so-called life. Ha-ha. insults Islam. Mohammed
Scout
2017-08-13 08:21:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Wally W.
Post by Scout
Post by Wally W.
Post by Scout
Post by Kurt (Sphincter) Schlichter
Another step forward in understanding ourselves.
If you want to understand our origins, it helps to understand that there
is no mechanism for us to have evolved from some
lower life form to ourselves via the fantasized evolutionary
pathway.
Ok, so exactly what pathway can you find evidence of to explain how and why
we exist as we do today.
and don't try asserting fantasized processes which you have no evidence of,
or you will be in the same boat as you claim that evolution is.
False comparison.
No, perfectly valid comparison.
Yes, it is a false comparison.
How so? You assert they make claims without evidence. Which is no less than
what you're doing.
Post by Wally W.
Post by Scout
If you're telling me they are wrong,
I'm telling you that evolution is faith-based because it can't produce
the missing links.
And yours is different how?

Meanwhile, on a side note are you aware of how many missing links have been
found....only for those on your side to demand new links on each side of the
link just discovered?

Exactly what level of evidence do you demand?

A piece of land that has never been subject to any upheavals, and never
disturbed in any way, where every creature laid down on top of their
parents to die?

Meanwhile, exactly WHAT evidence do you have to support your claims?
Post by Wally W.
Post by Scout
then
you should have evidence that shows proof of another means.
False demand.
Oh, so it's wrong that they don't have any proof, but asking you to supply
it isn't acceptable?

Talk about a double standard.

If you find their evidence inadequate, then present stronger evidence that
you're right.


<snip lame attempt to change the subject>
Post by Wally W.
Post by Scout
Post by Wally W.
Evolution claims to be science that is evidence-based.
Are you saying your claims aren't based on evidence?
They aren't based on *scientific* evidence.
So what evidence are they based on?
Post by Wally W.
Evolution claims to be based on scientific evidence. It is not. It is
faith-based.
No, there seems to be evidence to support it, and while I agree it's
somewhat limited and to some degree inconclusive, it is far better evidence
than anything you've brought to the table to support your assertion which is
PURELY a matter of faith.

Seems, you like evidence that is based in faith.....but only if it's YOUR
faith.

I don't really care either way. So far, your attempts to claim they are
wrong and you're right because of your faith in your beliefs....I find to be
unconvincing. At least they are actually trying to find out if they are
right or wrong and willing to change their minds if they can find evidence
to do so. You on the other hand seem utterly content to believe what you
believe without evidence, investigation or even doubt.
Post by Wally W.
Post by Scout
Post by Wally W.
Theistic creation claims the appearance of humans was a miracle.
Yep, that seems to be your proof. Point at the sky and say "He did it"
(HDI).
Why did the flower bloom? (HDI)
Why did the bridge collapse? (HDI)
It might have been because of some bad calcuations; or the contractor
might have cut corners.
Oh, really? God makes bad calculations or hires contractors that cut
corners?
Post by Wally W.
Post by Scout
Amazing curiousity there, you assert to know the answer before you even ask
the question.
You are imagining what I know.
I have to, since you refuse to back up your claims with any sort of
evidence.
Post by Wally W.
Post by Scout
Whatever you want to ask about....(HDI).
Why does the light turn on? (HDI).
Post by Wally W.
Greenies claim the existence of *other* humans is a curse.
I'm more concerned about your claims, that what you claim others believe.
Be as concerned as you choose to be.
I am, and right now, my concern for your blind beliefs is less than it was.
Those you argue against, at least they are looking for evidence of whether
they are right or wrong.
Post by Wally W.
Post by Scout
So.....once again....other than pointing at a being who's even existence
hasn't been proven....
What do you mean "proven?"
The same level of proof you would demand for evolution.

After all, if the standard is good enough for that, then it should be just
as good for your claims.
Post by Wally W.
Post by Scout
what do you have to back up your claims on why and how
man is here?
The case for theistic creation is at least as good as the case for the
faith-based assertions about evolution.
Not really. Because while science can show linkages, though admittedly
incomplete, they can track changes over time and even within the human body
there exists structures and organs that are poorly 'designed' or even
utterly useless in the form we exist in now. While, not proof, it is
evidence which suggests creatures change over time due to natural causes.

Heck, you can't even produce scientific evidence of the being you assert
what you claim.

For example.

Let's say I postulate that flowers are a result of the work of fairies.
When challenged on that, I simply point to the flowers as proof that they
were created by fairies.
Thus, by what seems to be your standards for your evidence, I have proven
fairies exist.

Here's a thought to blow your mind: What if God used evolution to create
life?

If that statement is true, then your denial of how he created life is at
odds with your assertion that he did so.

And what evidence do you have that evolution wasn't his method for creating
life?
Wally W.
2017-08-13 10:40:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Scout
Post by Wally W.
Post by Scout
Post by Wally W.
Post by Scout
Post by Kurt (Sphincter) Schlichter
Another step forward in understanding ourselves.
If you want to understand our origins, it helps to understand that there
is no mechanism for us to have evolved from some
lower life form to ourselves via the fantasized evolutionary
pathway.
Ok, so exactly what pathway can you find evidence of to explain how and why
we exist as we do today.
and don't try asserting fantasized processes which you have no evidence of,
or you will be in the same boat as you claim that evolution is.
False comparison.
No, perfectly valid comparison.
Yes, it is a false comparison.
How so? You assert they make claims without evidence. Which is no less than
what you're doing.
If evolution is a science, it needs *scientific* evidence.
Post by Scout
Post by Wally W.
Post by Scout
If you're telling me they are wrong,
I'm telling you that evolution is faith-based because it can't produce
the missing links.
And yours is different how?
Theis isn't a science.

We can't put God in a test tube.
Post by Scout
Meanwhile, on a side note are you aware of how many missing links have been
found....only for those on your side to demand new links on each side of the
link just discovered?
Exactly what level of evidence do you demand?
Continuity in the chain evolutionist claim exists.
Post by Scout
A piece of land that has never been subject to any upheavals, and never
disturbed in any way, where every creature laid down on top of their
parents to die?
Meanwhile, exactly WHAT evidence do you have to support your claims?
Testimonial evidence of millions of people.

This same kind of evidence is adequate for some purposes in a court of
law.
Post by Scout
Post by Wally W.
Post by Scout
then
you should have evidence that shows proof of another means.
False demand.
Oh, so it's wrong that they don't have any proof, but asking you to supply
it isn't acceptable?
I don't claim theist creation is a science. You say evolution is a
science. They require different kinds of proof.
Post by Scout
Talk about a double standard.
Talk about muddying the waters.
Post by Scout
If you find their evidence inadequate, then present stronger evidence that
you're right.
That's not how science works. The burden of proof is on the
"scientists" who put forth the theory of evolution. Show us continuity
in the record.
Post by Scout
<snip lame attempt to change the subject>
You snipped another example of faith-based spew that wants to call
itself "science."
Post by Scout
Post by Wally W.
Post by Scout
Post by Wally W.
Evolution claims to be science that is evidence-based.
Are you saying your claims aren't based on evidence?
They aren't based on *scientific* evidence.
So what evidence are they based on?
See above about testimonial evidence.
Post by Scout
Post by Wally W.
Evolution claims to be based on scientific evidence. It is not. It is
faith-based.
No, there seems to be evidence to support it, and while I agree it's
somewhat limited and to some degree inconclusive, it is far better evidence
than anything you've brought to the table to support your assertion which is
PURELY a matter of faith.
You are being quite dogmatic even though you admit your "scientific"
evidence is "somewhat limited and to some degree inconclusive.' One
could interpret your dogmatism as arising from an article of faith.
Post by Scout
Seems, you like evidence that is based in faith.....but only if it's YOUR
faith.
I don't really care either way. So far, your attempts to claim they are
wrong and you're right because of your faith in your beliefs....I find to be
unconvincing. At least they are actually trying to find out if they are
right or wrong and willing to change their minds if they can find evidence
to do so.
To what do you suppose they would change if they find out they are
wrong?
Post by Scout
You on the other hand seem utterly content to believe what you
believe without evidence, investigation or even doubt.
My belief doesn't need scientific evidence, because it isn't science.
Post by Scout
Post by Wally W.
Post by Scout
Post by Wally W.
Theistic creation claims the appearance of humans was a miracle.
Yep, that seems to be your proof. Point at the sky and say "He did it"
(HDI).
Why did the flower bloom? (HDI)
Why did the bridge collapse? (HDI)
It might have been because of some bad calcuations; or the contractor
might have cut corners.
Oh, really? God makes bad calculations or hires contractors that cut
corners?
God doesn't build bridges. People do.
Post by Scout
Post by Wally W.
Post by Scout
Amazing curiousity there, you assert to know the answer before you even ask
the question.
You are imagining what I know.
I have to, since you refuse to back up your claims with any sort of
evidence.
Again, the burden of proof is on those who want to be dogmatic about
the Truth of evolution: show us continuity in the record.
Post by Scout
Post by Wally W.
Post by Scout
Whatever you want to ask about....(HDI).
Why does the light turn on? (HDI).
Post by Wally W.
Greenies claim the existence of *other* humans is a curse.
I'm more concerned about your claims, that what you claim others believe.
Be as concerned as you choose to be.
I am, and right now, my concern for your blind beliefs is less than it was.
Those you argue against, at least they are looking for evidence of whether
they are right or wrong.
Are *you* looking for evidence that evolution is wrong?

If so, please describe your most recent search.
Post by Scout
Post by Wally W.
Post by Scout
So.....once again....other than pointing at a being who's even existence
hasn't been proven....
What do you mean "proven?"
The same level of proof you would demand for evolution.
Again, faith in a creator is not science. Neither is evolution, but
you won't admit that your belief in evolution is faith-based.
Post by Scout
After all, if the standard is good enough for that, then it should be just
as good for your claims.
Post by Wally W.
Post by Scout
what do you have to back up your claims on why and how
man is here?
The case for theistic creation is at least as good as the case for the
faith-based assertions about evolution.
Not really. Because while science can show linkages, though admittedly
incomplete, they can track changes over time and even within the human body
there exists structures and organs that are poorly 'designed' or even
utterly useless in the form we exist in now. While, not proof, it is
evidence which suggests creatures change over time due to natural causes.
Heck, you can't even produce scientific evidence of the being you assert
what you claim.
Look up at night.

Where did the stars come from?

From the big bang?

That's another faith-based view that is spewed with dogmatism:
"In the Beginning there was nothing,
which exploded." - Terry Pratchett
Post by Scout
For example.
Let's say I postulate that flowers are a result of the work of fairies.
When challenged on that, I simply point to the flowers as proof that they
were created by fairies.
Thus, by what seems to be your standards for your evidence, I have proven
fairies exist.
Here's a thought to blow your mind: What if God used evolution to create
life?
You think that never came up before? It is called theistic evolution.
Some believe that.
Post by Scout
If that statement is true, then your denial of how he created life is at
odds with your assertion that he did so.
And if it isn't, it is not.
Post by Scout
And what evidence do you have that evolution wasn't his method for creating
life?
He spoke the various parts of creation into existence. See Genesis
chapter 1:
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+1

Siri Cruise
2017-08-13 10:05:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Wally W.
I'm telling you that evolution is faith-based because it can't produce
the missing links.
Evolution is an observed process in both wild and domestic life. Theories of
evolution are developped with the scientific method.

The scientific method is based on assumptions about the nature of the universe.
For some people those might be considerred beliefs or a religion, however
everything based on experimental science is based on those same assumptions. It
is inconsistent to accept the scientific method only when you like the results.

(The universe is objectively real, mechanical, explicable, consistent.)

I personally don't see fossils as evidence of evolution, but the reverse,
something explained by the theories. For anything too old for DNA convergent
evolution is very improbable but possible explanation.

There's more than enough evidence looking at life as she is spoken here and now
and analyzing DNA over the last tens (hundreds?) of thousands of years.
Post by Wally W.
Post by Scout
then
you should have evidence that shows proof of another means.
False demand.
True, you cannot be forced to justify your statements. I cannot be forced to
agree with them. Do you care enough if I agree with you?
Post by Wally W.
It's like the greenies screeching about global warming and claiming it
Diversion.
Post by Wally W.
Post by Scout
Post by Wally W.
Evolution claims to be science that is evidence-based.
Are you saying your claims aren't based on evidence?
They aren't based on *scientific* evidence.
Evolution can be observed in your yard. In your home. In a flowerpot. On a farm.
Anywhere there's life.
Post by Wally W.
Post by Scout
Post by Wally W.
Theistic creation claims the appearance of humans was a miracle.
Or the creation of Hutts was a miracle, and humans were an accident.
Post by Wally W.
Post by Scout
what do you have to back up your claims on why and how
man is here?
The case for theistic creation is at least as good as the case for the
faith-based assertions about evolution.
I can construct a consistent creationism. I don't know if you can.

However consistency is not sufficient for believability. A consistent
creationism requires a trickster god who made people very intelligent but
punishes us if we use that god-given intelligence.
--
:-<> Siri Seal of Disavowal #000-001. Disavowed. Denied. Deleted. @
'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.' /|\
Free the Amos Yee one. This post / \
Yeah, too bad about your so-called life. Ha-ha. insults Islam. Mohammed
Scout
2017-08-13 10:18:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Siri Cruise
Post by Wally W.
I'm telling you that evolution is faith-based because it can't produce
the missing links.
Evolution is an observed process in both wild and domestic life. Theories of
evolution are developped with the scientific method.
The scientific method is based on assumptions about the nature of the universe.
For some people those might be considerred beliefs or a religion, however
everything based on experimental science is based on those same assumptions. It
is inconsistent to accept the scientific method only when you like the results.
(The universe is objectively real, mechanical, explicable, consistent.)
I personally don't see fossils as evidence of evolution, but the reverse,
something explained by the theories. For anything too old for DNA convergent
evolution is very improbable but possible explanation.
There's more than enough evidence looking at life as she is spoken here and now
and analyzing DNA over the last tens (hundreds?) of thousands of years.
Post by Wally W.
Post by Scout
then
you should have evidence that shows proof of another means.
False demand.
True, you cannot be forced to justify your statements. I cannot be forced to
agree with them. Do you care enough if I agree with you?
Post by Wally W.
It's like the greenies screeching about global warming and claiming it
Diversion.
Post by Wally W.
Post by Scout
Post by Wally W.
Evolution claims to be science that is evidence-based.
Are you saying your claims aren't based on evidence?
They aren't based on *scientific* evidence.
Evolution can be observed in your yard. In your home. In a flowerpot. On a farm.
Anywhere there's life.
Post by Wally W.
Post by Scout
Post by Wally W.
Theistic creation claims the appearance of humans was a miracle.
Or the creation of Hutts was a miracle, and humans were an accident.
Post by Wally W.
Post by Scout
what do you have to back up your claims on why and how
man is here?
The case for theistic creation is at least as good as the case for the
faith-based assertions about evolution.
I can construct a consistent creationism. I don't know if you can.
However consistency is not sufficient for believability. A consistent
creationism requires a trickster god who made people very intelligent but
punishes us if we use that god-given intelligence.
Bravo!
Wally W.
2017-08-13 10:20:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Siri Cruise
Post by Wally W.
I'm telling you that evolution is faith-based because it can't produce
the missing links.
Evolution is an observed process
You observed dinosaurs morph to birds?
Post by Siri Cruise
in both wild and domestic life. Theories of
evolution are developped with the scientific method.
The scientific method is based on assumptions about the nature of the universe.
For some people those might be considerred beliefs or a religion, however
everything based on experimental science is based on those same assumptions. It
is inconsistent to accept the scientific method only when you like the results.
(The universe is objectively real, mechanical, explicable, consistent.)
I personally don't see fossils as evidence of evolution, but the reverse,
something explained by the theories. For anything too old for DNA convergent
evolution is very improbable but possible explanation.
There's more than enough evidence looking at life as she is spoken here and now
and analyzing DNA over the last tens (hundreds?) of thousands of years.
Post by Wally W.
Post by Scout
then
you should have evidence that shows proof of another means.
False demand.
True, you cannot be forced to justify your statements. I cannot be forced to
agree with them. Do you care enough if I agree with you?
Post by Wally W.
It's like the greenies screeching about global warming and claiming it
Diversion.
Post by Wally W.
Post by Scout
Post by Wally W.
Evolution claims to be science that is evidence-based.
Are you saying your claims aren't based on evidence?
They aren't based on *scientific* evidence.
Evolution can be observed in your yard. In your home. In a flowerpot. On a farm.
Anywhere there's life.
Post by Wally W.
Post by Scout
Post by Wally W.
Theistic creation claims the appearance of humans was a miracle.
Or the creation of Hutts was a miracle, and humans were an accident.
Post by Wally W.
Post by Scout
what do you have to back up your claims on why and how
man is here?
The case for theistic creation is at least as good as the case for the
faith-based assertions about evolution.
I can construct a consistent creationism. I don't know if you can.
However consistency is not sufficient for believability. A consistent
creationism requires a trickster god who made people very intelligent but
punishes us if we use that god-given intelligence.
Siri Cruise
2017-08-13 10:29:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Wally W.
You observed dinosaurs morph to birds?
We have observed the evolution of wheat, pigs, influenza, and other life over
the last five thousand years. We can observe the evolution of DNA over multiple
thousands of years.

These observations support the explanation that fossils show an evolution of
dinosaurs to birds.
--
:-<> Siri Seal of Disavowal #000-001. Disavowed. Denied. Deleted. @
'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.' /|\
Free the Amos Yee one. This post / \
Yeah, too bad about your so-called life. Ha-ha. insults Islam. Mohammed
A***@yahoo.com
2017-08-11 05:20:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Kurt (Sphincter) Schlichter
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/08/ancient-infant-ape-
skull-
sheds-light-ancestor-all-humans-and-living-apes
*Ancient Infant Ape Skull Sheds Light on the Ancestor of All
Humans and Living Apes* by Michael Price
Aug. 9, 2017
Anthropologists have waited decades to find the complete
cranium of a Miocene ape from Africa -- one that lived in the
hazy period before the human lineage split off from the common
ancestors we share with chimpanzees some 7 million years ago.
Now, scientists in Kenya have found their prize at last: an
almost perfectly preserved skull roughly the size of a
baseball. The catch? It’s from an infant. That means that
although it can give scientists a rough idea of what the common
ancestor to all living apes and humans would have looked like,
drawing other meaningful conclusions could be challenging.
“This is the sort of thing that the fossil record loves to do
to us,” says James Rossie, a biological anthropologist at the
State University of New York in Stony Brook who wasn’t
involved with the study. “The problem is that we learn from
fossils by comparing them to others. When there are no other
infant Miocene ape skulls to which to make those comparisons,
your hands are tied”.
The remarkably complete skull was discovered in the Turkana
Basin of northern Kenya 3 years ago. As the sun sank behind the
Napudet Hills west of Lake Turkana, primate paleontologist
Isaiah Nengo of De Anza College in Cupertino, California, and
his team started walking back to their jeep. Kenyan fossil
hunter John Ekusi raced ahead to smoke a cigarette. Suddenly he
began circling in place. When Nengo caught up, he saw a
dirt-clogged eye socket staring up at him. “There was this
skull just sticking out of the ground,” Nengo recalls. “It
was incredible because we had been going up and down that path
for weeks and never noticed it”.
The team carefully extracted the fossil from the rocky ground
using small dental picks and brushes. Nengo knew immediately it
was a primate skull, but that he wouldn’t learn much more
until he and colleagues performed a more sophisticated
analysis.
At the Noble Gas Laboratory at Rutgers University in New
Brunswick, New Jersey, researchers measured argon
isotopes—which decay at a fixed, predictable rate—within
the fossil’s rock layer, revealing that it was about 13
million years old. Back then, the dry, rocky landscape of
today’s Turkana Basin was a lush rainforest.
Although the fossil looks a bit like a gibbon skull on first
blush, Nengo says, its dental pattern and teeth shape suggest
its closest relatives are other Miocene fossil primates from
the genus *Nyanzapithecus*, also found in Kenya. Yet its molars
are much larger than those of the known nyanzapithecines,
indicating a new species. The researchers named it *N. alesi*,
or Alesi for short, after the Turkana word for “ancestor”.
Extremely sensitive x-ray imaging performed at the European
Synchrotron Radiation Facility in Grenoble, France, allowed the
team to count growth lines in the fossil’s unerupted adult
teeth like tree rings, telling them Alesi was about 485 days
(or 1 year and 4 months) old when it died. The x-rays also
revealed the presence of bony ear tubes in the skull, which act
as a balance organ. Primatologists have long debated whether
the Nyanzapithecus genus belonged to the ape or monkey line,
but the presence of these tubes, combined with the size and
shape of the teeth, solidly mark Alesi -- and by extension the
other nyanzapithecines -- as apes
[http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v548/n7666/full/nature234
5
6.html?foxtrotcallback=true], the researchers report today in
'Nature'. What’s more, they claim, the ear tubes present
strong evidence that it’s an evolutionary cousin to the
ancestral line of apes from which humans and living apes
derive.
That could help answer a long-standing question in primate
evolution: Did the common ancestor to living apes and humans
evolve in Africa or Eurasia? Nengo says the new finding
supports an African origin. “Africa has been acting like a
petri dish for millions of years, conducting experiments in
evolution,” he says. “Humans and our close ape relatives
are just the latest evolutionary experiments to come out of
that petri dish.”
David Begun, an anthropologist at the University of Toronto in
Canada, isn’t convinced. He points to the fact that fossil
hominines—a group whose descendants include African apes and
humans—have been found in Europe dating to 12.5 million years
ago, but they don’t conclusively show up in the African
fossil record until 7 million years ago. To him, that suggests
the common ancestor evolved in Europe before heading back into
Africa. The discovery of N. alesi does nothing to change that.
“*Nyanzapithecus* is an early ape,” Begun says. “Whether
it’s the closest thing we know to the last common ancestor...
is questionable.” ----------
Another step forward in understanding ourselves.
. . .
That's an interesting bedtime story.
Tracy12
2017-08-11 11:58:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Kurt (Sphincter) Schlichter
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/08/ancient-infant-ape-
skull-
sheds-light-ancestor-all-humans-and-living-apes
*Ancient Infant Ape Skull Sheds Light on the Ancestor of All
Humans and Living Apes* by Michael Price
Aug. 9, 2017
Anthropologists have waited decades to find the complete
cranium of a Miocene ape from Africa -- one that lived in the
hazy period before the human lineage split off from the
common ancestors we share with chimpanzees some 7 million
years ago. Now, scientists in Kenya have found their prize at
last: an almost perfectly preserved skull roughly the size of
a baseball. The catch? It’s from an infant. That means that
although it can give scientists a rough idea of what the
common ancestor to all living apes and humans would have
looked like, drawing other meaningful conclusions could be
challenging.
“This is the sort of thing that the fossil record loves to
do to us,” says James Rossie, a biological anthropologist
at the State University of New York in Stony Brook who
wasn’t involved with the study. “The problem is that we
learn from fossils by comparing them to others. When there
are no other infant Miocene ape skulls to which to make those
comparisons, your hands are tied”.
The remarkably complete skull was discovered in the Turkana
Basin of northern Kenya 3 years ago. As the sun sank behind
the Napudet Hills west of Lake Turkana, primate
paleontologist Isaiah Nengo of De Anza College in Cupertino,
California, and his team started walking back to their jeep.
Kenyan fossil hunter John Ekusi raced ahead to smoke a
cigarette. Suddenly he began circling in place. When Nengo
caught up, he saw a dirt-clogged eye socket staring up at
him. “There was this skull just sticking out of the
ground,” Nengo recalls. “It was incredible because we had
been going up and down that path for weeks and never noticed
it”.
The team carefully extracted the fossil from the rocky ground
using small dental picks and brushes. Nengo knew immediately
it was a primate skull, but that he wouldn’t learn much
more until he and colleagues performed a more sophisticated
analysis.
At the Noble Gas Laboratory at Rutgers University in New
Brunswick, New Jersey, researchers measured argon
isotopes—which decay at a fixed, predictable rate—within
the fossil’s rock layer, revealing that it was about 13
million years old. Back then, the dry, rocky landscape of
today’s Turkana Basin was a lush rainforest.
Although the fossil looks a bit like a gibbon skull on first
blush, Nengo says, its dental pattern and teeth shape suggest
its closest relatives are other Miocene fossil primates from
the genus *Nyanzapithecus*, also found in Kenya. Yet its
molars are much larger than those of the known
nyanzapithecines, indicating a new species. The researchers
named it *N. alesi*, or Alesi for short, after the Turkana
word for “ancestor”.
Extremely sensitive x-ray imaging performed at the European
Synchrotron Radiation Facility in Grenoble, France, allowed
the team to count growth lines in the fossil’s unerupted
adult teeth like tree rings, telling them Alesi was about 485
days (or 1 year and 4 months) old when it died. The x-rays
also revealed the presence of bony ear tubes in the skull,
which act as a balance organ. Primatologists have long
debated whether the Nyanzapithecus genus belonged to the ape
or monkey line, but the presence of these tubes, combined
with the size and shape of the teeth, solidly mark Alesi --
and by extension the other nyanzapithecines -- as apes
[http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v548/n7666/full/nature2
3
Post by Kurt (Sphincter) Schlichter
4 5
6.html?foxtrotcallback=true], the researchers report today in
'Nature'. What’s more, they claim, the ear tubes present
strong evidence that it’s an evolutionary cousin to the
ancestral line of apes from which humans and living apes
derive.
That could help answer a long-standing question in primate
evolution: Did the common ancestor to living apes and humans
evolve in Africa or Eurasia? Nengo says the new finding
supports an African origin. “Africa has been acting like a
petri dish for millions of years, conducting experiments in
evolution,” he says. “Humans and our close ape relatives
are just the latest evolutionary experiments to come out of
that petri dish.”
David Begun, an anthropologist at the University of Toronto
in Canada, isn’t convinced. He points to the fact that
fossil hominines—a group whose descendants include African
apes and humans—have been found in Europe dating to 12.5
million years ago, but they don’t conclusively show up in
the African fossil record until 7 million years ago. To him,
that suggests the common ancestor evolved in Europe before
heading back into Africa. The discovery of N. alesi does
nothing to change that. “*Nyanzapithecus* is an early
ape,” Begun says. “Whether it’s the closest thing we
know to the last common ancestor... is questionable.”
----------
Another step forward in understanding ourselves.
. . .
The only sensible answer is that science is a lying because we
were created by a giant bearded white Christian Conservative
capitalist God who lives in the sky.. Send all your money to
Benny Hinn, John Hagee, Franklin Graham and Pat Robertson.
They have a special magic that gives them the power to talk
with the God.
Loading...