Skip to comments.Did apes descend from us? (first evos say we descended from apes, now say other way around...LOL!!!)
Posted on 10/02/2009 11:00:06 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
click here to read article
>> Then why are the Temple of Darwin scientists saying that this research brings into question the belief that our most distant ancestors descended from apes? <<
The apes of today are not the apes a four million years ago. The idea that science is discovering may be true is that our most common ancestor between the lines that exist today may need to be pushed back based of newly found fossil evidence. You never know what fossil evidence may be dug up or accidentally discovered tomorrow, but it is a new piece in puzzle that may never be 100% understood, but we may eventually get a general sense in how life developed on earth over the Billions of years this planet has existed.
I have no idea. None of the links work!
Take your pick.
1. The scientists are being misquoted by sensationalist journalists.
2. The scientists are trying to get publicity for what by any logical standard isn’t that big a discovery.
At least that’s how it seems to me. What counts is what the discovery means, not what scientists say it means.
Haven’t you heard, all those Temples dedicated to Darwin’s evo-religious creation myth routinely censor, deny tenure, and ultimately throw out any scientist who dares to propose a theory that rivals Darwood’s origins fairytale.
See the “Aquatic Ape Hypothesis”.
it has some good points on explaining WHY we developed the way we did.
Agreed, in an ideal world, which is to remind those that Paul of Tarsus differentiated between true science and the methodology applied and politically influenced science, and personal agenda driven goals as with the wonder boy Hendrik Schön. These are people like you and I, and sometimes they need help putting their pants on and I don't.....unless of course to much port wine the night before.
Their is much of science that will collapse due to a failure in credibility due to the a fore mentioned dynamics.
Strange days ahead for science.........
==I have no idea. None of the links work!
I guess they’re still evolving :o)
I don’t know anything about “Aquatic Hominid” theory, but I certainly agree with your depiction of what science used to be and how it has devolved. It has been coopted by the left for use as political and social engineering. The result is “junk science”. Two words that years ago would have never been connected.
Not only do we need to take our country back, we need to reclaim science for true science, [your words] “the applied practice of skepticism and methodical experimentation as a tool to understand the world in which we live in.” Here-here!
My high school english teacher said man did not evolve from the ape, he evolved from the jackass.
Already given you a response blowing them out of the water on coal and diamonds. It is obvious that they are not about presenting the ‘rest of the story’ but are truncating it in the expectation that the lazy and ignorant will accept their words without challenge.
Why only those two choices?
If you insist on hanging your stuff out in public, be prepared to be told it’s not as large as you think it is.
I was calling my dog????
I don’t know, xcamel, but if I didn’t know any better, I’d say you’ve been hitting the bottle again.
Explain to me “Radio-Halo’s”?
How do some radio-isotopes with half-lives in the range of 2-3 minutes manage to leave spherical radio-halo’s in rocks of molten nature?
Money quote of the day!
Regardless of all the gotcha, the Ardi skeleton is fascinating. The researchers painstakingly combed the discovery site for 15 years to get the complete skeletal remains. That’s a huge leap beyond the incomplete Lucy. I don’t particularly care for the artist conception in Science Mag - they made too many assumptions without adhering to the muscle mass ratios based on limb length and thickness. I’d like to see a clay model rather than pencil. The clay applied on the replica skeleton will give you a fairly precise reconstruction. Hairy or non- well... that’s the artists guess.
For someone who tries to make the connection of believing in evolution and racism, you really are not helping yourself by adding Obama keywords to a story about monkeys- Knock it off! Racism, even veiled isn’t tolerated her.
...and you ain’t just whistlin’ Dixie!
I assume you are referring to Gentry's work ....
Gentry's polonium halo hypothesis for a young Earth fails, or is inconclusive for, all tests. Gentry's entire thesis is built on a compounded set of assumptions. He is unable to demonstrate that concentric haloes in mica are caused uniquely by alpha particles resulting from the decay of polonium isotopes. His samples are not from "primordial" pieces of the Earth's original crust, but from rocks which have been extensively reworked. Finally, his hypothesis cannot accommodate the many alternative lines of evidence that demonstrate a great age for the Earth. Gentry rationalizes any evidence which contradicts his hypothesis by proposing three "singularities" - one time divine interventions - over the past 6000 years. Of course, supernatural events and processes fall outside the realm of scientific investigations to address. As with the idea of variable radioactive decay rates, once Gentry moves beyond the realm of physical laws, his arguments fail to have any scientific usefulness. If divine action is necessary to fit the halo hypothesis into some consistent model of Earth history, why waste all that time trying to argue about the origins of the haloes based on current scientific theory? This is where most Creationist arguments break down when they try to adopt the language and trappings of science. Trying to prove a religious premise is itself an act of faith, not science.
“The urge to save humanity is always a false front for the urge to rule it. - H. L. Mencken”
Inane.....I imagine that if I had no ability to discern between a salvation that was based in the Truth of God the Creator that requires faith, and not of your own, but given of God himself, lest you boast.....and a salvation that is based in faith in the “Creature more than the Creator”, ergo, “Man is the destroyer and Savior of this World”.
You will eventually believe in Gore and AWG and the kindly demise of the elderly to make way to the youth....etc., eventually.
Ted Talks has a great video on the Aquatic Ape theory.
After a closer examination of the skeleton (via the line drawing) the limb length, forward inclined appendicular girdle and narrow pelvic illiac seems to accommodate a frequent quadruped. I’d say it looks more like a browser than a climber that could walk in erect posture - but I’d err here on the long fingered lady being crouched more often than upright.
Yet, if you google (for example) Radioactive dating failure: Recent New Zealand lava flows yield ages of millions of years, you get 974 hits. You should get something from that, even if it's simply a boatload of quarrels you can pick with GGG.
Thanks for the ping!
“generally” “probably” “mostly” LOL!
It is interesting to note that he was published in Science, and yes with some controversy. But, no actual studies to undermine the conclusions.
I can surmise, as you provided, anything I want, however, the surmising is without and contradiction provided by studies, only educated opinions.
I do see a publication or 2 that attempted an alternative explanation without directly challenging Gentry that were published in Science, however, no indication of a study.
I do see claims of Gentry disproved on the internet, but again, not without publication or another study.
There may be another individual that explored this in a study. But I haven’t found it.
However, if your asserting that someone disagreeing with Gentry is proof that he is wrong, then we that disagree with you is all that’s needed to declare you inept....but I won’t.
I honestly have to go, so maybe we can continue this later.
This conclusion published in Science?
"To the question of what mode of origin is consistent with the relatively short half-lives of the polonium isotopes (or their β-decaying precursors), I can say only that other mechanisms are under study."
The requested URL /article/1795 was not found on this server.
Hmmm....now I wonder why that is???
Try this instead:
“Then why are the Temple of Darwin scientists saying that this research brings into question the belief that our most distant ancestors descended from apes?”
—I think that was a really poorly phrased way of trying to say that we changed just as much as chimps since the common ancestor. I.e. we didn’t evolve “from” apes - us and chimps changed just as much since the common ancestor, and in fact we may have change less than chimps (at in fact in total anatomy we may have even changed slightly less, at least from the neck down). The next sentence indicates what he meant - although I think it’s a dumb and confusing way of putting it.
Could this lend credence to the phrase “I’m a monkey’s uncle”?
You link to Gentry blows the ‘varible decay rate’ out of the water.
With respect to the decay rate question, Spector (31) has
argued that the differences between Henderson et al (20) halo
radii measurements and equivalent air mineral ranges present
a case for a variable 2. In the light of the above experimental
uncertainties, this conclusion is not necessarily valid. On the
other hand, Gentry (24) has shown that even exact agreement
between halo radii and corresponding CB sizes does not
necessarily imply an invariant A and in fact uncertainties in
radius measurements alone preclude establishing the stability
of it for 238U to more than 35%.
I’m sure there are others, those are just the most obvious ones to me. Feel free to add your favorites.
How about the Temple of Darwin human origins fairytale is a subjective mess.
You have some point other than making yourself look like a blithering idiot?
But Ardi, while past the initial link stage, possesses enough ape and hominid traits to show what those true common ancestors would have looked like, he says.
"It's the first find that we have that is really informative about what that last common ancestor was like."
Could you please be so kind as to explain how these statements from the article disprove the Evolutionary theory?
On a side note, I’m almost postive that this:
“may have first sprung up some six million years before Ardi”
- was a misquote or misspeak.
I think he meant (or actually said) that the last common ancestor was six million years ago - not six million years before Ardi (which would push it back to about 10 million years ago).
If Ardi is already essentially what we expect in a common ancestor, and is essentially a chimp/human hybrid, than pushing the actual ancestor back an additional 6 million years would make no sense.
Statements from other scientists also indicate that this was a misquote/misspeak:
“This is not that common ancestor, but it’s the closest we have ever been able to come,” said Tim White, director of the Human Evolution Research Center at the University of California, Berkeley.
The lines that evolved into modern humans and living apes probably shared an ancestor 6 million to 7 million years ago, White said in a telephone interview.”
I guess the last common ancestor first sprung up six million years before Ardi part went right over your head?
I am not positive, but I think that statement does not support the YEC story, and does nothing to disprove the scientific theory of Evolution.
It appears to me that more humans are evolving into apes all the time.
And what empirically verified common ancestor would that be, Ira?
Nice try but I have advised you before your little games of name-calling, misconceptions, and misdirection will no longer work.
I asked you How does that disprove the Evolutionary theory? Now answer the question.
Actually, my reply went right over your head, or, as a typical Temple of Darwin fanatic, you are refusing to answer the question because you know the answer discredits the “scientific” status of Darwood’s evo-religious creation myth. Let me ask you again: what empirically verified common ancestor (shared between humans and apes) would that be, Ira?
I asked Could you please be so kind as to explain how these statements from the article disprove the Evolutionary theory?
You are avoiding my question by trying to change the subject.
We are not playing the misdirection game.