02 Sep 12
Originally posted by twhiteheadThat is what I have thought too. The links to the common ancestor they call Eve is not supported by fossils but by the DNA evidence. This doesn't prove anything about creation or evolution by itself though.
Considering the number of species that have existed, and the number of fossils found so far, we are a long long way from finding fossils of all species that ever lived. In fact, as species slowly change over time and speciate or go extinct, it is practically impossible to really give solid boundaries to species anyway.
Generally a 'missing link' is when ...[text shortened]... e relatives of man - many of which have been found, far more than were originally expected.
02 Sep 12
Originally posted by joe beyserThat is a different 'common ancestor' than what I was referring to. Mitochondrial Eve is a common ancestor to all humans. I was talking about a common ancestor to all great apes, or to known relatives of humans such as Neanderthals.
The links to the common ancestor they call Eve is not supported by fossils but by the DNA evidence.
This doesn't prove anything about creation or evolution by itself though.
Mitochondrial Eve tells us that all humans had a common female ancestor (this doesn't mean the population was 2, or even small at the time.) The research also tells us approximate when that common ancestor lived (200,000 years ago) which does seem to contradict Young Earth Creationism. But then we can equally find a mitochondrial eve for all great apes, or all mammals or all placentals etc. And this would contradict some versions of creationism.
Also, the research into mitochondrial Eve, does tell us quite a lot about evolution and the rate of change of various genes and the population movements of humans and many other useful things, some of which are related to evolution.
02 Sep 12
2 edits
Originally posted by joe beyserBut, remember, the fossil evidence does prove that we and modern apes have a common ancestor.
That is what I have thought too. The links to the common ancestor they call Eve is not supported by fossils but by the DNA evidence. This doesn't prove anything about creation or evolution by itself though.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australopithecus
and recently:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/07/120712162744.htm
I believe there's still may be some debate of whether Australopithecus is our direct ancestor or is simply a very close relative of our direct ancestor although the general consensus is that it is our direct ancestor but, either way, make no mistake; the fossil evidence does prove evolution while disproves the Eve-myth.
Also, the DNA evidence proves we and all life ( at least that we know of ) must be related and thus share a common ancestor -there is just simply no other way to account for the observed similarities in the genomes ( unless a 'God' put those similarities there to confuse us into believing all life is related 😛 )
04 Sep 12
Originally posted by humyAnother thing is that the human embryo as it develops into a fetus resembles other species. Also the fossil record of what we do have shows that the further back in time the simpler life forms were. That corroborates the evolution theory somewhat.
But, remember, the fossil evidence does prove that we and modern apes have a common ancestor.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australopithecus
and recently:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/07/120712162744.htm
I believe there's still may be some debate of whether Australopithecus is our direct ancestor or is simply a very close relative of ...[text shortened]... ss a 'God' put those similarities there to confuse us into believing all life is related 😛 )
14 Sep 12
4 edits
Originally posted by joe beyserSounds like a fan of Teilhard De Chardin. The Wikipedia summary of his book The Phenomenon of Man gives a neat summary of his argument and it is fun in a science fiction / fantasy sort of way.
George Coyne of the vatican observatory claims that creation is by evolution. He said it takes several generations of stars and their dusts to form new solar systems to get the chemistry for life to exist. He also states that we may not be the end product of creation but a step along the way. Some claim the lack of missing links are evidence against evolution, but I am not sure we have a big enough sample of fossil evidence yet for that conclusion.
Teilhard views evolution as a process that leads to increasing complexity. From the cell to the thinking animal, a process of psychical concentration leads to greater consciousness.[3] The emergence of Homo sapiens marks the beginning of a new age, as the power acquired by consciousness to turn in upon itself raises humankind to a new sphere.[4] Borrowing Julian Huxley’s expression, Teilhard describes humankind as evolution becoming conscious of itself.[5]
In Teilhard's conception of the evolution of the species, a collective identity begins to develop as trade and the transmission of ideas increases.[6] Knowledge accumulates and is transmitted in increasing levels of depth and complexity.[7] This leads to a further augmentation of consciousness and the emergence of a thinking layer that envelops the earth.[8] Teilhard calls the new membrane the “noosphere” (from the Greek “nous,” meaning mind), a term first coined by Vladimir Vernadsky. The noosphere is the collective consciousness of humanity, the networks of thought and emotion in which all are immersed.[9]
.......The rapid expansion of the noosphere requires a new domain of psychical expansion, which “is staring us in the face if we would only raise our heads to look at it.”[12]
In Teilhard’s view, evolution will culminate in the Omega Point, a sort of supreme consciousness. Layers of consciousness will converge in Omega, fusing and consuming them in itself......
When you sobre up though, this is just the proposition that evolution has a direction or a purpose and has been refuted by Darwin and his successors. [This is the reason why it is outrageous and a total lie to associate Darwin in any way with the racist arguments of others basing their poison on discredited alternative theories about evolution, bearing in mind that Darwin did not invent the idea of evolution, but sought rather to account for how it operates.] Catholics are keen to retain the notion that evolution is the mechanism by which Creation takes place and is still taking place, which has the one saving grace that Catholics do not join in the Evangelical assault on evolutionary biology. They have belatedly taken the advice of Galileo that it is bad politics for the Church to find itself on the losing side in a scientific argument. It is nice that they have also stopped burning scientists.
17 Sep 12
Originally posted by finneganYeah, they stopped that just a few weeks ago....
Sounds like a fan of Teilhard De Chardin. The Wikipedia summary of his book The Phenomenon of Man gives a neat summary of his argument and it is fun in a science fiction / fantasy sort of way.
[quote] Teilhard views evolution as a process that leads to increasing complexity. From the cell to the thinking animal, a process of psychical concentration lead ...[text shortened]... osing side in a scientific argument. It is nice that they have also stopped burning scientists.
18 Sep 12
1 edit
Originally posted by sonhouseIndeed, they've got it down to a moderate flaming these days.
Yeah, they stopped that just a few weeks ago....
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/commentators/james-watson-to-question-genetic-intelligence-is-not-racism-397250.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1566468/Nobel-scientist-snubbed-after-racism-claims.html
18 Sep 12
1 edit
Originally posted by Thequ1ckI particularly like these comments from James Watson:
Indeed, they've got it down to a moderate flaming these days.
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/commentators/james-watson-to-question-genetic-intelligence-is-not-racism-397250.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1566468/Nobel-scientist-snubbed-after-racism-claims.html
“....I have always fiercely defended the position that we should base our view of the world on the state of our knowledge, on fact, and not on what we would like it to be. …
….
…
The thought that some people are innately wicked disturbs me. But science is not here to make us feel good. It is to answer questions in the service of knowledge and greater understanding.
….”
He clams he never said/implied that one race is inferior/superior to another.
19 Sep 12
Debates like this are useless, whether online or in the real world.
It doesn't matter how over compelling a piece of "evidence" in favour of the 'for' or 'against' argument is... the creationism vs evolution debate will never die until one of the following happens:
1- God himself comes down here and tells us to stop arguing
2- All people who are religious agree that there is no God
3- The world blows up
NEITHER of these are ever going to happen... unless aliens come along and go all 'Independence day' on our asses...
but mentioning aliens on this kinda thread is opening a whole new can of worms! 😲
19 Sep 12
Originally posted by 64squaresofpainPanspermia? Sounds like true enlightenment to me man!!
Debates like this are useless, whether online or in the real world.
It doesn't matter how over compelling a piece of "evidence" in favour of the 'for' or 'against' argument is... the creationism vs evolution debate will never die until one of the following happens:
1- God himself comes down here and tells us to stop arguing
2- All people who a ...[text shortened]... ...
but mentioning aliens on this kinda thread is opening a whole new can of worms! 😲
But seriously, I think debates like this will tend to resolve themselves in time.
