Skip to comments.Find raises doubts on key theory of human evolution
Posted on 04/02/2007 7:10:57 PM PDT by DaveLoneRanger
click here to read article
“It’s right here in front of me!”
"By further reflecting that the clearest evidence would be requisite to make any sane man believe in the miracles by which Christianity is supported,and that the more we know of the fixed laws of nature the more incredible do miracles become,that the men at that time were ignorant and credulous to a degree almost incomprehensible by us,that the Gospels cannot be proven to have been written simultaneously with the events,that they differ in many important details, far too important, as it seemed to me to be admitted as the usual inaccuracies of eye witnesses;by such reflections as these, which I give not as having the least novelty or value, but as they influenced me, I gradually came to disbelieve in Christianity as a divine revelation. The fact that many fake religions have spread over large portions of the earth like wildfire had some weight with me. But I was very unwilling to give up my belief; I feel sure of this, for I can remember often and often inventing day-dreams of old letters between distinguished Romans, and manuscripts being discovered at Pompeii or elsewhere, which confirmed in the most striking manner all that was written in the Gospels. But I found it more and more difficult, with free scope given to my imagination, to invent evidence which would suffice to convince me. Thus disbelief crept over me at a very slow rate, but was at last complete. The rate was so slow that I felt no distress, and have never since doubted even for a single second that my conclusion was correct."
( Charles Darwin in his Autobiography of Charles Darwin, Dover Publications, 1992, p. 62. )
Charles Darwin (1809-1882)
"I think that generally (& more & more as I grow older), but not always, that an agnostic would be the most correct description of my state of mind."
( Quoted from Adrian Desmond and James Moore, Darwin: The Life of a Tormented Evolutionist, New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 1991, p. 636. )
Given enough time...
Roughly the same percentage of the population believe in ghosts as those who believe in evolution.
China? Isn’t that where they make fake fossils for people to examine and put on display around the world in museums and schools?
Maybe it propagates to none. Could be it dies out with the individual.
Even if it did pass on, evos are constantly telling us that starting a population with two or six individuals would not have enough genetic variety to support a healthy population so that the whole human race could not have possibly sprung from just Adam and Eve or Noah and his family.
However, when a mutation occurs in an individual in evoland, and is spread to a small population which then migrates off somewhere else to evolve further, then it IS feasible that a small population has enough variety to maintain a healthy population and produce a wide variety of genetic characteristics.
It just depends on which side of the argument you’re on. You know, heads I win, tails you lose...
My theory?The one you're advocating.
Debating the out-of-Africa theory (160,000 years ago) vs. the more recent China data (multiregional, probably both 160,000 and 40,000 years ago) does not contradict a 6000 years ago earth?You think every find over 6,000 years contradicts young-earth. These scientists already had the assumptions of old ages in their heads, so it's not surprising that their conclusion was congruent with their assumption, as far as dates went.
You really need to read some science.
You are cruising the internet looking for articles which, in your limited understanding, may serve to cast some doubt--any doubt--on evolution. That does not amount to an understanding of science.Wait, so you don't want me reading scientific journals? Or do you want me reading them only with YOUR bias, not mine?
Not interested in Ken Ham or Kent Hovind. They don't post here. You do.YOU are the one that brought Answers in Genesis up, my friend. Out of the blue.
And you post anti-science nonsense, which you have admitted you get from AnswersinGenesis.Not anti-science, and who has to "admit" something when the URL is as plain as day? You keep acting as if that's something to be ashamed of. And anyway, I didn't post anything from AiG on this page, and remind me again why MY behavior is superceding the substance of this article?
Post in the Religion Forum and you won't get any challenges from me as long as what you are posting is religious belief and does not pretend to be science. That's where you and I tangle.I'm sorry; I don't let opponents determine the battlefield.
There are cave paintings in France, Italy and Africa that old.
Actually, this find and the question it raises doesn’t effect the theory of evolution one way or the other. All it suggests is that the “out of Africa” story may be a simplification that needs to be modified.
The difficulties with a purely material and chance-driven theory of evolution lie elsewhere.
Juat a word of advice Dave.
First you have to figure out what the battlefield is. Arguing from ignorance does not even put you on the same playing field as coyoteman.
I know, I know, next to his scientific acumen, I’m a worm. I’ve got that talking point down pat, can we move on?
Nah. They used Melmac. Alf brought a whole space ship load with him.
It’s a key component of human evolution, according to the article.
Sure it’s plenty of time, but this find forces a complete rewrite of human origins theory. Did you read the article?
Try this article on Wiki: Multiregional_hypothesis.
I did not couch it in those terms. However, you do need to really look at both sides. K?
Not a criticism, just good advice.
You’re always so caring. Ever since you told me to F off.
Tell me how, when I’ve had a year of college biology, when I’m exposed to daily doses in the media and online, and when I’m discussing the issue with the great luminaries of Darwinism here on Free Republic, how I’m NOT getting both sides?
The term "multiregional hypothesis" was first coined in the early 1980's by Milford H. Wolpoff and a group of associates as an explanation for the apparent similarities of the remains from the Homo erectus and Homo sapiens inhabiting the same region.So much for the strength of evolutionary predictions. That sounds a lot more like having to alter the theory to account for the evidence. Behold, the great strength of evolution: It has SO many practical predictions...except the ones that don't fit. Those we just accomodate by changing the theory.
Both schools completely accept the theory of evolution, as well as the theory of gravitation, the theory of relativity, electromagnetic theory, and the rest of modern science.
To pretend that this discovery is evidence for creationism or against science is to flirt with dishonesty.
I'm not sure I understand your point. The theory of evolution isn't being debated, what's being debated is the mechanism by which humans evolved.
Whether humans evolved in Africa or in Africa and China, all of the scientists in question agree that humans evolved somewhere and all agree on the basic mechanisms by which human beings did so.
Actually I do care.
Ever since you told me to F off.
For that single post, it was an approrpiate response.
Tell me how, when Ive had a year of college biology, when Im exposed to daily doses in the media and online, and when Im discussing the issue with the great luminaries of Darwinism here on Free Republic, how Im NOT getting both sides?
You are kidding I hope. How does one year of basic biology stack up to years of grad school? And the public media - we all know how much scientific acumen is found there.
Are you seriously trying to draw a correlation between the belief in Ghosts and the acceptance of evolution based on the number of people belonging to those two groups rather than by comparing the content of the ideas, associated physical evidence, and the methodology used to draw conclusions ?
That is funny.
Which fake fossils might those be?
That is indeed what happens most frequently. Each of us has mutations not existing in our parents. Most of those are not subject to selection so depend on drift to propagate through a population.
"Even if it did pass on, evos are constantly telling us that starting a population with two or six individuals would not have enough genetic variety to support a healthy population so that the whole human race could not have possibly sprung from just Adam and Eve or Noah and his family.
Why do you find this so hard to understand?
There are sequences in the genome that change very slowly, there are others that change at a consistent rate. When the rates of those sequences are taken into account, the number of current alleles is too high to be from a population of 6 people from only 6000 - 10000 years in our past.
Small populations tend to suffer from 'founder effect' (severe population bottleneck) where, because of inbreeding, recessive genes become homozygous and tend make the population die off.
"However, when a mutation occurs in an individual in evoland, and is spread to a small population which then migrates off somewhere else to evolve further, then it IS feasible that a small population has enough variety to maintain a healthy population and produce a wide variety of genetic characteristics.
Did you see where they claimed the small population consisted of only 6 individuals? I didn't. Did you see where they claimed that only that small group contributed to the variation in our genome? I didn't.
The ones that another evo told me I could order to examine if I wanted to check out a fossil and analyze it. THe casts made of the real things.
So what is the minimum sized population needed to prevent inbreeding? How big was a *small group* that migrated?
Add UFOs and you will pick up the rest of the population.
Casts are made all over the world and are accurate impressions of the original fossil. Why would you single out China, and why would you call them 'fake', with the implication that they have been in some way dishonestly modified from the original?
That is difficult to tell unless the number of harmful homozygous alleles are known for the population. However we do know that the populations on Pitcairn Island, Easter Island and the Amish in the US have a higher than average incidence of homozygous alleles. With 2 people the number of alleles at a given locus is only 4 which means that the third generation would start experiencing homozygous alleles.
"How big was a *small group* that migrated?"
Small populations would probably be in the thousands. It would also not be a single group that left Africa, it would be multiple groups which interbred. The idea that we all descended from a small group does not imply that they were the only humans alive in the area. It just means that all the descendants of those outside that group have died out.
While this theory may have been named in the '80s, it was something I was exposed to in evolution classes in the '70s.
What is at issue is how certain traits came to be in different world groups. One theory is that there was some continuity of traits from Homo erectus to modern man, even though the main impetus of the evolution to modern human took place in Africa and spread from there. The other theory is that there was no such continuity of traits from Homo erectus to modern man, and the spread from Africa was responsible for all subsequent groups.
You really should try to understand an issue before you jump all over it.
How does one year of basic biology stack up to years of grad school?It doesn't. You said I needed to look at both sides. I explained that I do, have and am. Now are you just having trouble keeping track of the responses to different accusations, or are you trying to twist my words?
Yes, that's the place.
Zhoukoudian is where Davidson Black and Teilhard de Chardin found "Peking Man". In 1921 Black found two teeth. Upon studying the upper molar carefully, he concluded that it obviously belonged to a new species of tarzan, Sinanthropus pekinensis, a knuckle-dragging ape man or something like that. Wouldn't you? Anyway, others were not so easily convinced. Maybe three teeth would have clinched it for Davidson.
Chardin got involved in the late 1920's, along with C. C. Young and Wengzhong Pei. Upon investigating ash-pits in what may be some kind of ancient lime-quarry, other stuff turned up. The New York Times (ha ha) reported that "ten skeletons unearthed simultaneously with an unbroken skull", and even Nature reported something equally silly, but it turned out that all that was merely a slight misreading of Chardin's comment: "My impression is that the fissure containing Sinanthropus (Black estimates that there are traces of at least 10 individuals) is..." What they actually found was one (1) piece of skull-cap.
Lots of other fragments and teeth were supposedly found subsequently, casts were made, drawings, grainy photos, reconstructions. There was some controversy concerning the reconstructions, as bits and pieces of anything were joined together to make complete skulls. But G. Elliot Smith denied this, and claimed the reconstructions were solid, because they lined up with Piltdown man. There was some evidence that "Peking Man" was chomped on by modern man, but theories about cannibalism and hyenas made that go away. The reports about exactly what was found are grossly inconsistent, but it doesn't matter anyway, because all of it disappeared, as is well known.
If you go to Zhoukoudian today, all you will see, indeed all you will ever see of "Peking Man" - and that on a lucky day - is a fragment of skull-cap, supposedly discovered in 1966. What you will also see are many top-knotch bronze casts like this one
and this one
and some nice art:
And a good pic of Dr Pei:
Which is proof enough. What more could one want?
Try this link: Peking Man for additional details.
You might also try reading what is at The Peking Man World Heritage Site at Zhoukoudian rather than just lifting a few pictures in a silly effort to present the findings in a bad light.
I like Chinese thought,
the wisdom that Confucious taught,
if Darwin has anything to shout about,
the Chinese will survive us all
without any doubt!
Just updating the GGG info, not sending a general distribution.
· Mirabilis · Texas AM Anthropology News · Yahoo Anthro & Archaeo ·
· History or Science & Nature Podcasts · Excerpt, or Link only? · cgk's list of ping lists ·