POLL: Science Vs Religion

Like I said, the old stuff is sketchy.

Two finds, Sahelanthropis tchadensis and Orroin tugenesis, could be the last common ancestor of humans and chimps (or "missing link" as you put it). Little is known about both, but they are candidates. Orroin was probably a biped, so it may of been an early offshoot hominid (bipedalism is what makes humans human and defines our lineage, not increased brain size). Obviously the ancestral population would not have been bipedal.

As for Sahelanthropus, we have a skull. It could be from, or very close to, the original ancestral population. We'd need postcrania to be sure.

Here is a picture of Sahel:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/toumai.html

I usually recommend not getting information on evolution from websites (basically because any idiot can post whatever they want on the web) and sticking to peer reviewed scholarly journals. But I'm pretty sure talkorigins has a good reputation.

They also have a rundown of the species I posted, with a small description. They included many offshoots like I mentioned in my 1st post.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/species.html#tugenensis

Thanks... Hopefully at the end of this year I will have a degree in Biology.

[ December 09, 2003, 21:45: Message edited by: InquisitorX ]

 

Was it Lucy that really messed with thier heads because she was too evolved for how old they dated her?

I don't have a degree in Biology so forgive my ignorance. I sort of knew that it wasn't the destiny of apes to become future humans, but I always thought that the strongest apes evolved into Homo Erectus, then the strongest Homo Erectus evolved into Homo Sapien - or am I seriously out to lunch. Could you recommend some reading (in lamen terms please) that could inform me of some of my misinformation?

Also, do you believe that we evolved from single cell orginisms? That seems so far fetched because of our highly (well, most of us) developed brains.

 

No. 'Lucy' was a great find because it was the most complete skeleton of an Australopithecus we could hope to get. I'm not sure about the historical context of the Lucy find, but she fits in perfectly with the other evidence we have now.

The most controversial "fossil" that messed things up was the Piltdown man fossil. Piltdown showed that brain size came before bipedalism (all the other evidence argued it the other way around). It was very perplexing to anthropologists. It turns out that piltdown was a hoax. Once that was determined it cleared up our view of human evolution.

Sadly, some creationists pathetically point to piltdown man as proof that evolution is not true, because it was a hoax. They fail to understand or acknowledge that piltdown man is completely irrelevant because of that fact.

You're out to lunch
Kidding. You're are sort of on the right track.

Now remember what I said before, humans are a type of ape. About 5-8 million years ago an ancestral population of apes (that was probably chimp-like) split into 2 different populations. One of the populations would go on its own unique evolutionary course and become what today we call chimpazees. The other lineage would lead to modern day humans.

You're sort of right with your assertion that "the strongest Homo Erectus evolved into Homo Sapien." First understand its not "the strongest" who evolve into new species.

The best adapted members of a species who leave the most offspring drive evolutionary change.

Members of Homo ergaster(erectus) who had larger brains than their peers left more offspring because large brains were selected for (there was an advantage to having a large brain). This led to a gradual transition from smaller to larger brains.

Again I refer you to the website I posted before if you want to learn about evolution. The site is very comprehensive and clearly written. Everything I have read on the site (which isn't much) is well accepted and clearly articulated.

http://www.talkorigins.org/

Honestly, before my research in the topic the assertion we evolved from single-celled organisms did seem far-fetched. I know enough now to know that we did evolve from single-celled organisms.

 

@InquisitorX

I would like to make one edit to your last statement

and change it to "I know enough now to believe that we did evolve from single-celled organisms"

Regardless of how you present it, the Theory of Macroevolution (Evolutionary theory as you speak of it) is still nevertheless a Theory , with enough difficulties and disagreements within the field to require as great a leap of faith as belief in staunch Creationism. No, wait, perhaps even greater.

You do the same dis-service to society that all scientists do, when they present theory as fact. No doubt, if you are still in school then you are being taught that theory is fact, so I certainly do not blame you. I am not even criticizing what you believe, only ask that you retain a skepticism toward what you are presented. I don't have the answers as to exactly how we got here, but I can gurantee you this, no scientist does either. In 50 years they will mock what is being taught now.

I love the Evolutionists claim that we share 98% DNA with a Chimp...I have a news flash, we share 91% DNA with a Sea Cucumber. Macroevolution requires so much faith in the postulations that it's adherents require, it in iself approaches the realm of religion.

I am not an ignorant "Bible Thumper", they tend to trash me too. I just have found the more sure someone is of the answer they trumpet, the more you had better regard them with absolute caution, and Evolutionary scientists approach the question of our existence with more arrogance than could be mustered by 10 Creationists. The entire theory is built upon a card-house of theories, and if any one of them fail, the entire answer implodes. You have a responsibility, as one who is receiving a scientific education, to inform all who you instruct that what you speak is merely the current theory purported by a segment of the scientific community.

Best to you and your studies.

 

Inquisitor X, while you certainly seem to know what you are talking about, and while I am in no way going to argue against what you have said, or the theory of evolution in itself, and while, until a few years ago, I was one of its most steadfast supporters, you must agknowledge (well, you don't have to, but I'm asking you too, pretty please ) that as it applies to humans it seems a little odd.

What I'm talking about can be summed up in just a few points.

Firstly, this is all conjecture and theory, even with fossil remains. There is no way to be certain that the dating is precise (I tell you it isn't, at least, not as old as millions of yaers in every case) and those said remains could come about in other manners (One of the theories as to the fall of Atlantis and Lemura was just this, genetical modification and inter-breeding (not literally) of our human ancestors and apes, there are stories of this happening between the demi-human ancestors of the Lemurians as well, and in this case it was interbreeding (I could go into an account of what I have learned of our ancestors, but I am not sure how well it will be taken by biologists, simply put, they -the biolgists- don't think of humans as ethereal, or in any other form than mammalian). It could also be simply from an extinct species, not necessarily one which grew into a human. Honestly, apes, and the steps inbetween, could all be throw-backs from us or another species. What I'm trying to say is by scientific method you cannot put this forward as fact, only (a very likely in your belief) supposition. Be careful when you speak of evidence, evidence does not prove anything, it can only support a theory designed to encompass it, and it can support all such theories. I've no doubt that we were at one time ape-men. I just don't think that that species physically evolved into another.

Now, humans are the only species that are spoken of of evolving in such a manner in present time. I am aware of the reptile-bird conversion and other such leaps (and even this to me is dubious), but those are said to be from a period of time far further back than us, and did not drastically change the basic nature of the animal, nor in such a short period of time. If you had a better understanding of the inner workings of animals this would be clearer. I am not saying we are any better per se, only different, and further along. I respect all life equally, but this doesn't mean I think all life is the same. Also, I am aware that apes and chimps are very intelligent, can even understand human language- but intelligence is not what I am talking about, and there are many other ways to account for this, let alone the fact that they may just be really smart animals- not necessarily related to us in such a manner.

Also, there are many many fossil records that show species have not evolved, over even longer periods of time than we talk about with others, which means to me that evolution (in a biological sense) concerns only refinement of a species, not drastic changes, at least, not in the manner you have proposed.

This said, again, I am not arguing the theory of evolution in itself, only the application of such. I have no doubt that every species has evolved (biologically) to be better than it originally was, humans included, and in this I agree that the evidence is overwhelmingly conclusive. But what I mean here is slight changes; gaining a foot of height in average size over a few thousand years, not a totally new spinal column. [Edit: yes, I am arguing against macroevolution, it is the lesser bilogical evolution of which I was speaking in support of] I do not debate the human-ape link, the ape-men as a species which we once were, nor the common ancestor (we all have a common ancestor), nor the demi or cross-forms, only that one biologically evolved into the other (and in that manner, the origin of the species as it pertains to single cell organisms as well. I believe we evolved from such a singular entity, but in a different manner than do you).

I think I beleive in evolution more than most, and in a sense stronger than most. Reptiles, apes, trees, rocks, water -they all share our heritage, and one grows into the other. But the change is not biological, how could it be?

Ok Inquistor X, you may set loose your denouncements and cries of crackpot and moron now if you wish; but I stand by what I have said, and I will still respect you entirely if you stand by what you have said, there is no reason why you should change your mind at this point in time.

Edit: I just saw Hacken Slash's post, and would like to agree with everything he said, if it wasn't allready clear that I was trying to say the same thing, it seems, again, I have a harder time making myself clear than do most, I get confused halfway through what I am saying and start talkining about something else entirely.

[ December 10, 2003, 02:33: Message edited by: Manus ]

 

I think Inquisitor X can 'know' that we evolved from single cell organisms so long as it is true, he believes it, and his belief is justified. He believes it, sounds like he knows enough to justify his belief, so, as long as it is true, I'd say he knows it.

There is a difference in knowing something and knowing that you know it ad infinitum. Knowledge requires the first and not the latter. But this descends into epistemology which is another subject.

Edit - didn't see Manus and haven't read it yet. I meant to add though that fact =!= knowledge.

 

I'm sure some people would be shocked to know that we probably evolved from bi-lipid membraned vesicles before the single cell stage.

There are flaws in every scientific theory, however the job of a scientist involves backing up their theories with strong evidence. Any theory that doesn't stand up to criticism will get trashed. Theories are made stronger if they withstand years of criticism and are still around, as a result becoming less hypothetical and more factual as the evidence builds up.

 

I'm going to cower behind Manus and Hacken Slash and say that it seems unlikely that humans are the only species to evolve so completely. I mean, look at the difference between an ape and a human. There's a distinct comparison, but we look totally different.

Besides, is it possible for something to evolve worse than when it started. Chimps and apes have an incredible strength to body wieght ratio. Humans have a lousy one - even someone who is very fit.

Also, there's things that just aren't explained through evolution, like Quantum Physics.

Is it possible that evolution is just a lousy attempt to explain the unexplainable?

 

@ Laches

Wasn't this covered in another thread?

I didn't mean to challenge the beliefs of InquisitorX. I am certain that what he accepts as reality becomes reality for him...that is not the issue.

I could perhaps be described as a "Person of Faith" (I have been called many other things, but in the interest of PG-13 rating, I won't recount them here). As a Person of Faith, I exercise a significantly higher level of restraint in how I answer the questions of those who do not believe as I do. I am aware that it is not my place to make a reality for them. Evolutionary Scientist do no such thing. They speak as though what they purport is fact, when sadly it is not. It is only the latest theory of a human society attempting to answer the question of existence without the aknowlegement of a higher being. All too often it is presented as fact, and I only challenged him to discern the difference.

 

Haha, Tassadar, you're abviously not a physicist, my god, they'll make up anything as long as they think it'll support the theory they like rather than admit they're wrong, or consider something else, despite the fact that they are surounded by flaws and fallacies. Me? Bitter? Never!

Truly, this (what you have stated) is sometimes how science works, but more often than not people will blindly stick to their beliefs as long as they can. The progression you speak of only takes place of several, if not many, generations. As HS said, fifty years and they'll think every scientist today was crazy. 2 years? Not a chance.

Edit: directed this to Tassadar as originally intended. I'm going to have to learn to type faster.

Yes, HS, I've laughed out loud upon hearing staunch materialists and would-be scientists argue another would-be scientist that he could not believe in the 'supernatural' as he termed it because there was no proof, and where did he get off trying to say that we had to believe something because he said so. Never ceases to amaze me. As it turns out, I've (in the past) alieneted both sides, hell, every side, of the fence on this one, but at least they can all agree on something

 

@Mystra's Chosen...

Aren't you too big to cower behind Manus and I?

 

Hacken Slash-

You misinterpret the meaning of the word "theory" in the "Theory of Evolution."

"Evolutionary Theory" is not a theory in the sense that "yeah I got a theory that stuff changes over time."

Allele frequencies change over time. That is a fact. All Evolution is is a change in allele frequencies over time.

"Evolutionary Theory" is a theory in the same sense that "Atomic Theory" is a theory. It is a vast collection of ideas, theories, tests, and empirical evidence that serve to explain phenotypic and genotypic differences between species. It also serves to explains ecological relationships and behavioral characteristics of species.

There are 2 different takes on macroevolution: phyletic gradualism and puntucated equilibrium. They are certainly not mutually exclusively as you erroneously claimed in your post. Fossil evidence shows that both theories have merit. Both mechanisms seem to have a place in evolutionary theory.

Punctuated equilbrium seems, in my view, to reasonably explain situations where change in environment is fast and violent. And phyletic gradualism explains situations where change in environment is more mild.

This is irrelevant. I said "as an aside" you might find that interesting. I in no way used that to back my claims. Even so, no animal shares more genetic similarity to humans than chimps.

Baseless rhetoric. The vast majority of the 'postualtions' of macroevolution are extremely logical are require little to no faith to accept.

Your argument would be strengthened if you were to post some examples. Which I would be glad to refute and/or explain.

That is empty rhetoric as well. Our views of evolution change everyday. Theories are constantly being replaced and revised. It is that skepticism that has strengthened evolutionary theory. Evolutionary theory is stronger now than it ever was.

The infrastructure of evolutionary theory is more akin to the metaphor of a building than a cardhouse. Sometimes we add a room, sometimes we remove a room. Other times we decided a part needs to be remodeled. The renovations we have made over the past century and a half have only strengthened the infrastructure of our building.

-Manis

Some methods of dating are incredibly precise. Others aren't. Due to the sheer number of dates and the way different dating methods corrobate with one another it is an extremely unlikely that these dates give completely false information (there is of course a measure of error, but typically it is small).

Humans evolve in the same way any other species does. The 'great changes' from ape to human are largely comsetic. We are bipedal, hairless, and have large brains. Beyond that we extremely closely related to other living apes in a phenotypic sense. Our metabolic processes are virtually identical and our body structure is extremely similar (we share the "brachiation complex" with other apes)

Evolution is a response to ADAPT to an environment. It is NOT constant and it has NO direction. If something is perfectly adapted to an environment why should it change? Evolution is the change of allele frequencies over time. If a species is optimially adapted to an environment we wouldn not expect it to change allele freqencies (the shark is the ideal example).

Whoa, whoa, whoa. Species do not evolve to be "better." They evolve to be "better adapted" via differential selection. Let's not forget evolution is not-predetermined. Manus, say it with me: "Evolution is not pre-determined." That is a key point I keep trying to emphasis but for some reason ends up being ignored.

Manus, I hope I cleared somethings up for you. Honestly, I had no idea what you were talking about in half your post. But, you're certainly entitled to your opinion.

M Chosen-

"Looks" can be decieving. As I said before we are highly dervied. The changes in our line most likely came about a response to a violent changes in environment. (Like the shift from forest to savannah lifestyles). And we aren't the only Primate species to be so derived. The aye-aye is the perfect example. It looks just like a rat, but it is a Primate!

Why have something you don't need? With the development of tool cultures there was no need for large muscles. Having large muscles would be a disadvantage because you would require more food for the sole purpose of maintaining a worthless trait. Furthermore, with brain expansion your body would require much more energy. A way to balance this out would be to reduce muscle mass.

[ December 10, 2003, 03:46: Message edited by: InquisitorX ]

 

@IquisitorX
I do not misconstrue the meaning of theory. I have a BS in Biochemistry and a MS in Civil Engineering, with a little luck will have a Doctorate in another technical field in about a year.

I understand what Theory means, and also understand what the limitations of the Scientific designation of fact are. Every statement you make is based upon the assumption that another statement is "fact". I am not looking to engage in an arguement, only sought to challenge you to observe all that you are told is "fact".

It is incontrovertible that if we seek to follow the path of DNA, then the trail of human life is indiscernable from other life. If we, as fallible, transitory beings, chose to cling to the ideas of other fallible transitory beings, the depths of our wisdom will be swamped by the greater depths of what we can not answer.

This is the wrong forum for a debate point by point of the validity of Evolutionary Theory, only an appeal to retain an autonomy from the machine.

 

Inquisitor X, if it was so logical and required so little faith to accept why are we all arguing against you?

Seriously though, you're likening humans and chimps together only by internal biology, and, internally and biologically, most things are almost identical, if not very similar. These are not the changes that most of us would consider noteworthy. There are huge insurmountable differences which biology doesn't even take into consideratin.

All I was trying to point out by the fossil remains example is you don't know anything for certain, I mean, many people still think the moon was spun off from the Earth, which even the scientific and mathematic evidence don't support, but that's beside the point. I've no doubt the evidence is corroborative, but I think that all of those dating techniques are somewhat misleading, so it doesn't matter if they all say the same thing.

You comments on adaptation is exactly what we have all been talking about. It seems apes are far more adapted to a jungle environment (which Africa used to be a well) than are we. We can survive better, but it takes a lot more effort, and if we didn't exist then there would be nor eason that something would have to adapt better so as to compete with such a species, let alone the fact that while many species are now extinct, many forms of apes are not. Seems to me they adapted pretty well.

So I think that humans adapt to become better humans, (or at least in theory, sometimes with our modern lifestyles we are genetically handi-capping ourselves) but this is genetics, which is what I think biological evolution is, I don't accept the other types of evolution, or at least, I hold my self reserved on all others to decide on a later date, and do not accept the theory as it pertains to humans.

As to the pre-determination aspect, well, that's what I'm trying to say. The evolution that I'm speaking of is pre-determined, before we even existed. Whether you accept that such evolution exists is up to you, but for me, there is no greater purpose. Having people I know remember past lives helps, because it (while not proving) lends weight to my belief. Hearing people speak of mysticism and a greater understanding of the minds and lives around them, not just restricted to humans or even animate objects for that manner, lends further weight. To have the masters throughout history say such things almost convinces me, they have no reason to lie nor to be mistaken. I come from the same viewpoint as you, it's just that I have different experiences, or evidence if you like, to base my descisions upon, thus those descisions will no doubt be different.

That's all we have, we each are basing what we say upon our experiences up to this point. I'm sorry if what I said was unclear, but I am no more (or less either really) citing a simple opinion than are you.

Edit: Once more to direct the post, once more to throw my lot in in agreement with HS. If this keeps up, I fear we shall never bicker again. Perhaps I should change my stance just for the sake of an arument. He's right though, Inquisitor X, we are aware that you believe in the scientific theory of evolution, but is it to the exclusion of all else, or are you agnostic? I know I speak for more than myself, and I hope that this should be clear by now, that one can be a scientist, be scientific, and not exclude all faith. Indeed, it seems that the atheist or materialist has as much faith in their doctrine as does any other devout (or not, as the case may be) follower in theirs. Are not these too, a type of religion (and an organised one at that)!

[ December 10, 2003, 03:57: Message edited by: Manus ]

 

Hacken Slash-

I understand what you are saying.

I realize the limitations of human perception on reality. The only things I consider 'facts' are what I deem irrefutable; it is quite possible another person may find what I find irrefutable, refutable.

By taking an objective look at the evidence provided I deem evolution an irrefutable fact. Almost every concievable question you could think up about organisms and their ecology can be adequately explained using the logic that is embedded into evolutionary theory.

 

Explained using a theory based upon a theory, IquisitorX, that is all I seek to say.

Again, I hope you do well in your studies. Where are you going to school?

EDIT: Let me add, that I have felt exactly how you have felt. It was only when I began to seek answers "outside" the box, that I began to realize the limitations to Evolutionary theory. I concede, that there is no theory that can be proposed by Man that can satisfy the question of existence of Man as well as evolutionary theory. I only ask that you leave yourself open to doubt, to the power of intangible magick, and not blindly accept theory as fact.

[ December 10, 2003, 04:11: Message edited by: Hacken Slash ]

 

The University of California.

Manus-

I am an agnostic. I have not accumulated enough evidence to convince me of whether or not supernatural forces exist, and I never will.

 

I think that perhaps my last post was missed in the change of page, and it brings up some points which may interest you (Inquisitor X, hehe, no edit this time) based upon what you have last said, for while evolution may explain some things, it does not explain everything, and all of these things can be explained in many different ways. It is finding something which conclusively explains everything which is the trick, and, I fear, beyond our abilities. But if I start with supposing X=Y because Z, than anything that is the Theory of Y will have to prove Z, because it is fundamental to X's understanding of it.

Anyway, I am curious to your views on the topic question not pertaining to evolution.

Edit: My apologies, looks like I was too slow once more but yes, an agnostic seems the most sensible viewpoint for one who has not had experience with these things, but when any of us tell you that we have, what does that make you think?

 

I guess this says it all

There is no point in further discussion.

Welcome to the Machine.