Origins of humans can be traced back to Europe, not Africa, study claims

[Raoul Duke]

There is a thing in the philosophy of science called "the problem of history' which briefly stated is that the problem with scientific theories (and what people think is 'proven') is that every theory we've had so far has been shown to be wrong by later theories. So, what does that imply for today's theories?
I leave it to you, humble reader

No, that's not the case at all. Many theories, particularly from the days before empirical testing was the norm, have been thrown out, like the four elements theory or phlogiston theory. But once we started testing things and looked for independently verified, repeatable testing as the basis for scientific knowledge, the majority of theories we've arrived at have only been updated and tweaked. Newton's calculations for the effects of gravity were magnificent and groundbreaking, and when Einstein came along and put forward his own model for gravity, all he did was improve upon Newton's work. The old theory wasn't "wrong", it was incomplete. Modern science is improving our understanding of nature by refining the theories that work, not replacing them outright.

Also, anyone who uses the argument that "evolution is only a theory" (the other guy above, not you Raoul), doesn't know what a theory is within science, and doesn't understand evolution by natural selection.

If I recall correctly at the turn of the century (1900 AD) a physicist thought that with Newton et al, that all that was left in physics was to dot the I's and cross the t's, yet all the big tenets of Classical physics were shown to be in error by Quantum Mechanics. Not refined by, but wrong. Although it is still true that Newton's physics are just fine for building a skyscraper, for example. But in search for ultimate truth, they are not, strictly speaking, true. They are merely sufficient.
Evolution, now that's really out of my line, but Iast I heard, humans shared a common ancestor with apes, we are not apes. The evolutionary lines split quite some time ago.

 

[amstech]

That article with 44 reasons (most of them facts) is a real pain isn't it?

Lol.

 

[mbrowne5061]

Evolution has more evidence going for it than electromagnetism.

Very true. We don't understand why half of the electromagnetic laws are the way they are - on that they are - yet we arguably bank far larger amounts of 'faith' in their consistent and predictable function.

When a scientist says "theory", its short hand for "we haven't developed a mathematics proof for this - we have the algebraic form, but not its integral". They admitting their understanding is incomplete, not adding an asterisk to their work saying "we might be wrong; don't sue".

If you can come up with a mathematics form that was a proof of evolution - a formula that perfectly predicted biological evolutionary behavior in any set of conditions - you would be a VERY rich man... and probably the first person to win Nobel Prizes in Physics, Chemistry, AND Medicine. Maybe one day someone will come up with such a formula, but I doubt that we can even imagine the tools necessary to begin work on such a problem. Until then, Evolution will be the theory scientists operate with and improve upon, until such time as a better model/theory/proof all together is put forward.

 

[Squid Surprise]

http://thetruthwins.com/archives/44-reasons-why-evolution-is-just-a-fairy-tale-for-adults

Got to love Creationists spreading misinformation.... notice how all the reasons tend to go to the same thing?

Here is a much more factual rebuttal...
http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/44-reasons-creationists-are-deceptive/
And part 2
http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/44-reasons-creationists-are-deceptive-cont/
And part 3
http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/44-reasons-creationists-are-deceptive-further-cont-2/
Edit: My bad, I forgot part 4....but I suspect that most of you got the gist after the first one

http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/44-reasons-final-installment/

Go get your bible and prove something now

 

[amstech]

Go get your bible and prove something now

I'm not religious, and very very few of those 44 reasons referenced biblical sources.
I know I know, evolution has not did anything to resolve our origins but it has answered a few questions here and there, atleast you have that!

 

[Squid Surprise]

I'm not religious, and very very few of those 44 reasons referenced biblical sources.
I know I know, evolution has not did anything to resolve our origins but it has answered a few questions here and there, atleast you have that!

Never said you were... but the article you posted is basically full of misinformation and flat out lies... there were little to no FACTS in it at all... it was written by a creationist who was being quite dishonest in his "scholarly approach".

Read the "rebuttal" and you'll see just how ridiculous your article was.

 

[Michiel]

"published two studios yesterday"
"which was much more hospital to ape species than the emerging Sahara desert"
"referring to the fact that Homos Sapiens' African origins..."

Might want to check that spelling checker

 

[amstech]

Never said you were... but the article you posted is basically full of misinformation and flat out lies..

Yeah, whatever you say.
It's pretty easy to find information these days regarding all of these topics.

there were little to no FACTS in it at all...

Unfortunately alot of those were facts based on scientific evidence.
There is just as much information to discard evolution explaining human origins as there is to support it.
Either has significant holes in data and relies on large amounts of faith.

Read the "rebuttal" and you'll see just how ridiculous your article was.

Rebuttal is rampant and part of every debate.

 

[cliffordcooley]

Unfortunately alot of those were facts based on scientific evidence.
There is just as much information to discard evolution explaining human origins as there is to support it.
Either has significant holes in data and relies on large amounts of faith.

What gets me is how people can't possibly conceive both to be the truth. And if both are true, one would never prove one over the other to be false. Proving one wrong seems to be the conundrum.

 

[Squid Surprise]

Yeah, whatever you say.
It's pretty easy to find information these days regarding all of these topics.



Unfortunately alot of those were facts based on scientific evidence.
There is just as much information to discard evolution explaining human origins as there is to support it.
Either has significant holes in data and relies on large amounts of faith.


Rebuttal is rampant and part of every debate.

No, NONE of those so-called facts were based on ANY scientific evidence. Not a single one of them.... Again, read the 4-part article that I posted, which debunks each and every "fact" your creationist article spouted.

You can argue whether or not God created the Earth - but it's a matter of FAITH, and no scientific evidence will back up these claims. I have no issue with people who simply say "because God did it"....

Everyone is entitled to their faith.... But don't go citing "scientific evidence" for this faith - there is NONE!!! You either believe or you don't.... Don't drag science into the argument - science only backs up evolution, not creationism. There is no arguing about that.

 

[amstech]

No, NONE of those so-called facts were based on ANY scientific evidence..

Sure.

You can argue whether or not God created the Earth - but it's a matter of FAITH, and no scientific evidence will back up these claims. I have no issue with people who simply say "because God did it"....

I never said anything about god.

Don't drag science into the argument - science only backs up evolution, not creationism. There is no arguing about that.

There is just as much information to discard evolution explaining human origins as there is to support it.
Either has significant holes in data and relies on large amounts of faith.

 

[Bubbajim]

There is just as much information to discard evolution explaining human origins as there is to support it.
Either has significant holes in data and relies on large amounts of faith.

I really don't understand your view that humans would lie outside of the process that, you admit, explains the rest of the diversity of life on this planet. You said that you didn't mention God, ok, so if you're not invoking religion, but you don't accept the evolutionary history of humans, do you have any other hypothesis for where we came from?

Also, this idea that because you can spot some gaps in a theory that are the size of a gnat's ****, therefore the theory can't be true, baffles me. I always imagine people with this mindset being on the jury of a criminal case;

"Well, we found the murder weapon with their finger prints, DNA at the scene, CCTV pictures of them entering the house, a clear motive and copies of threats sent beforehand, but gee whizz we're not sure what colour the getaway car was so the whole thing's a mystery!"

 

[Squid Surprise]

Sure.



I never said anything about god.


There is just as much information to discard evolution explaining human origins as there is to support it.
Either has significant holes in data and relies on large amounts of faith.

You used a creationist article to "explain" how evolution might not be real... The article you posted is a creationist propaganda article posted a couple of years ago that has NO facts, ignores all scientific evidence and basically posts outright lies... You may not have mentioned God yourself, but the source you've posted speaks for itself.

And while you keep posting "there is just as much information to discard evolution", you don't provide any of it... BECAUSE THERE ISN'T!! You are basically just lying.... There is absolutely ZERO scientific evidence "discarding" evolution.

If you are someone who doesn't believe in evolution - that is fine. But your reasons HAVE to be faith based... NOT evidence or science based... You can't argue with faith.... you CAN argue with science - provide some evidence

This is a tech site - so if you're going to spout your lies, please back them up with some scientific evidence.... or find a religious site to play on

 

[amstech]

Older but still valid:

Evolution is an unproved and unprovable hypothesis. It is a violation of at least two natural laws:
The law of bio-genesis demonstrated by Louis Pasteur. This law states that life can come only from life.
The second law of thermodynamics which states that all random changes to breeding result in an increase in disorder and vulnerability. This is in direct contradiction of evolution's postulate of increasing order and fitness.
Micro-evolution or changes within species is a fact, as shown by the fact that terriers and St. Barnards are both dogs of different sizes. Charles Darwin's evolutionary hypothesis, however, presupposes macro-evolution or changes between species. Out of millions of fossils found, there are no intermediate forms between species. If evolution were a fact there should be thousands of these forms.

I know a man who has offered $10,000 cash for any empirical evidence of evolution. This offer is known by several universities for the past 10 years. He has not had to pay out one penny. His name and address is available to anyone who asks me.

David Conner, Augusta

Evolution has some related facts but in the end:
There is just as much information to discard evolution explaining human origins as there is to support it.
Either has significant holes in data and relies on large amounts of faith.

 

[Bubbajim]

Evolution has some related facts but in the end:
There is just as much information to discard evolution explaining human origins as there is to support it.
Either has significant holes in data and relies on large amounts of faith.

I didn't really understand what your main argument was, but I didn't think you'd been doing too badly until your last post...

I know they're not your words, but this David Conner chap you've quoted is just downright wrong. First, the Louis Pasteur idea is relevent to Abiogenesis, not evolution by natural selection. Saying we don't know how life first got started is very different to saying we don't understand the process by which it propagated and diversified. They're two different questions, the second of which is answered entirely by evolution by natural (and sexual) selection.

The second point about the second law of thermodynamics is taking a very bizarre variant of that particular law and misapplying it. Of course there would be tons of mutations that would be bad for the organism who hosts them. But evolution doesn't work on individual organisms, it works on whole populations over vast amounts of time. It doesn't matter if "bad" mutations crop up, because all it takes is for one slightly beneficial mutation to occur and, given enough time, that'll propagate across the species. The "better" organisms will outcompete their rivals.

Macroevolution doesn't happen between a few generations - sure, that'd be almost magic! - but it definitely does happen over incredibly long periods of time. Think of it like this:

If I take a species and track them over a million years, you'll find that those born in the 1st 100,000 years will be able to breed together. They'll probably be able to breed with those born in the 2nd 100k years, maybe even the 3rd. But by the time you've gotten to the 9th and 10th 100k years, the accumulation of mutations and differences will be so great that the descendant and the original organism would be unlikely to mate and produce fertile offspring - and bam! You've got yourself a new species via evolution. An ape didn't one day give birth to a baby human, but over the 7+ million years since we shared a common ancestor, enough changes accumulated that we can't mate. I'm sure there are people who've tried.

Anyway, who's this bloke offering $10k? I want to show him microbial resistance to antibiotics and claim ma monies.

 

[Squid Surprise]

Older but still valid:


Evolution has some related facts but in the end:
There is just as much information to discard evolution explaining human origins as there is to support it.
Either has significant holes in data and relies on large amounts of faith.

So the answer is... NO.... you cannot supply any actual evidence... just misinformation and lies.... and then just state the same thing over again.... nicely argued...

 

[Scorpionking20]

Very true. We don't understand why half of the electromagnetic laws are the way they are - on that they are - yet we arguably bank far larger amounts of 'faith' in their consistent and predictable function.

When a scientist says "theory", its short hand for "we haven't developed a mathematics proof for this - we have the algebraic form, but not its integral". They admitting their understanding is incomplete, not adding an asterisk to their work saying "we might be wrong; don't sue".

If you can come up with a mathematics form that was a proof of evolution - a formula that perfectly predicted biological evolutionary behavior in any set of conditions - you would be a VERY rich man... and probably the first person to win Nobel Prizes in Physics, Chemistry, AND Medicine. Maybe one day someone will come up with such a formula, but I doubt that we can even imagine the tools necessary to begin work on such a problem. Until then, Evolution will be the theory scientists operate with and improve upon, until such time as a better model/theory/proof all together is put forward.

I don't think scientists will come up with an equation to describe evolution. It's not working with physics or something else that can be demonstrated mathematically. It's more of an explanation of events describing how the best suited genes keep going with environmental changes, and through time speciation occurs. Perhaps I'm not getting what your' trying to say...??? I'm getting out of you that there's an undiscovered "proof" of evolution, which makes as much sense as finding mathematical "proof" of the Id. We can apply mathematics to groups of living things and measure outcomes, but there isn't an expression for mathematical proof in evolution possible in an equation like there is for rocket equation.

 

[amstech]

Anyway, who's this bloke offering $10k? I want to show him microbial resistance to antibiotics and claim ma monies.

I could sure use 10K!, pay off my damn truck.

 

[cliffordcooley]

just misinformation and lies....

You only have grounds to say that if you prove God doesn't exist. Your scientific facts are just as flawed when it comes to proving the Bible wrong. When are people going to come to the realization that science will never do that, because the Bible is history not fantasy. You are spending so much time looking for flaws, you can't see the truths.

 

[Scorpionking20]

You only have grounds to say that if you prove God doesn't exist. Your scientific facts are just as flawed when it comes to proving the Bible wrong. When are people going to come to the realization that science will never do that, because the Bible is history not fantasy. You are spending so much time looking for flaws, you can't see the truths.

No it's not. The Quaran is the truth. Stupid! Or wait...Is it the Torah? Or is any one of the other holy books? BTW: Don't go full retard. It can ruin your career.

 

[cliffordcooley]

No it's not. The Quaran is the truth. Stupid! Or wait...Is it the Torah? Or is any one of the other holy books? BTW: Don't go full retard. It can ruin your career.

You mean like the post you just made. I think you will find it is not the books at fault, it is the stupid peoples interpretation of what they want it to mean. Generations of misguidance doesn't make the words any less true.

 

[Scorpionking20]

You mean like the post you just made. I think you will find it is not the books at fault, it is the stupid peoples interpretation of what they want it to mean. Generations of misguidance doesn't make the words any less true.

Yeah...your' belief in the words of ancient, uneducated, sand dwelling savages made up description of the world we live in, is false. Sorry guy...when you die, you aren't going to heaven. Because that concept doesn't exist. If it makes you feel better though, who am I to judge? A voter...that's who. This irrationality is the bane of our culture. Keep it up...bring another post. It won't change the fact that, if you take the bible at it's word, your' impressively misinformed about the universe you live in.

 

[cliffordcooley]

Yeah...your' belief in the words of ancient, uneducated, sand dwelling savages made up description of the world we live in, is false.

Welcome to the 20th century (and now 21st) TV, that has your mind so clouded, where everything you can't conceive of being real must be fantasy.

One day you will realize just how wrong you are.

As far as my actual belief, I'm not going to speak on it. That would be opinionated, just as your belief that the Bible is not real is opinionated. I know the book is written on historical events. I'm sorry you can't see that.

And I think we are done here because you can't and won't see how science can only support the words in the Bible. No matter how much you try to discredit the Bible, you will never succeed. You will only discredit peoples opinion and interpretation of the words.

 

[Squid Surprise]

You only have grounds to say that if you prove God doesn't exist. Your scientific facts are just as flawed when it comes to proving the Bible wrong. When are people going to come to the realization that science will never do that, because the Bible is history not fantasy. You are spending so much time looking for flaws, you can't see the truths.

Not what I said at all... your BELIEF in God is just that... BELIEF... No one can argue against faith - by definition, it is true if it is believed in...I never argued that God existed or didn't... I don't personally believe in God, but I have no issues with anyone who does - I'm not so arrogant as to believe that 5 billion or so people must be wrong...

Here's the thing though - while I can't argue the existence of God, I CAN (and have) argue the existence of evolution. This is a TECH site, and therefore, the only arguments that can be made are ones that are backed by FACTS - facts that can be backed up by EVIDENCE.

Creationists love to spout misinformation in order to obfuscate the issues. They aren't interested in postulating a scientific theory that counters evolution - they are only interested in attempting to "prove" that God created the world in 6 days...

And this simply CAN NOT be done using science or any factual methods. There is absolutely ZERO evidence that supports this. ZERO, NADA, NOTHING.

In order to believe that God created the world, you MUST take it on FAITH - because the only thing that supports it is religion.

Does this mean it's not true? Perhaps... perhaps not... but don't go dredging up lies and misleading quotes in order to pretend that evolution is a "pagan conspiracy" and that science points to an intelligent creator. Science does NOT support this... at all...
Can science answer all our questions? No, it can't... that's why it exists! So that we can continue researching, finding more evidence over time that can give us answers.

Meanwhile... faith gives us such unanswerable questions like "Why do bad things happen to good people?" instead...

Once again... this is a TECH site, and any arguments based on "the bible says so" have no place here anyways...

 

[Scorpionking20]

Welcome to the 20th century (and now 21st) TV, that has your mind so clouded, where everything you can't conceive of being real must be fantasy.

One day you will realize just how wrong you are.

As far as my actual belief, I'm not going to speak on it. That would be opinionated, just as your belief that the Bible is not real is opinionated. I know the book is written on historical events. I'm sorry you can't see that.

And I think we are done here because you can't and won't see how science can only support the words in the Bible. No matter how much you try to discredit the Bible, you will never succeed. You will only discredit peoples opinion and interpretation of the words.

We can be done here. I think I'm going to assert that I "know" Harry Potter is true while we are at it. Would you like to make a trip with me to Hogwarts so we can learn the *real life skills of magic?

BTW: It's not just my opinion that your desert text from savage, tribal people is not a correct understanding of our universe...that's where the evidence leads. There's evidence for the age of our universe, our place in it, and much of it's history. There's no evidence for a god of any kind, no evidence of miracles from the bible being true. Sure, there's some history in there...and mentions of historical events. That doesn't mean the entirety of it is true, especially in regards to the nature of the universe.