 other?.. To me, I smell BS, and I think that there were several types of humans on Earth in the beginning, originating from different areas from DNA that was scattered around the globe in the beginning. How could one species not "know" about another, if all humans originated from one place on Earth?... I think it's time all of you realized that Darwin is correct in that all humans do evolve and are still evolving, but Darwin didn't account for different types of humans originating from different parts of the globe at around the same time. Something isn't right here...
Did you read the article? The author states that their is "atleast" two pre-human subspecies from which our history needs to be figured out and linked to. If you take the fact that Neanderthal and Cro-magnon branches existed side by side and have now been proven to have made offspring. This is just more of the same thing only from an earlier time in our lineage.
much like we have many different breeds of cats, dogs, horses and such.
humanty its self had many breeds. Some successeded, other failed. some inter breed, some died off. that and the shear fraactal pattern of DNA can and does result in the wide range of humans today. Add in diffrent food sources and climates.. and its easy to see why people vary so much.
We could have benefited from your designing had you not instilled genetic isolation into human religions.
Now we have huge population segments with the mentality of a toy poodle.
Zoltan!
No, it's Mormons. We all get our own planet after we die, you know
Every time I see someone in these forums go "Hey, they found new evidence and had to revisit their hypotheses, so the whole thing is obviously made up," I cringe a little bit for the future. What would happen if one of those people became a doctor? "I thought your headaches were caused by dehydration, but it looks like you have a brain tumor....But that can't be right. So just keep drinking water." Or a detective? "We thought that guy might have robbed the shop, but new evidence suggests that it was this other guy. But we have to go with our original theory or it will mean that we don't know what we're doing. So go ahead and arrest the innocent dude. We have to save face."
Let 'em teach creationism in schools, and you can expect that scenario to become reality.
Well said. But you have to understand that science is by it's nature adaptive, and religion by its nature is immutable. So learning from experience is a foreign concept.
There is no proof that God exists–nor is there proof that He does not exist. Big bang or God fart–take your choice, either equally plausible.
There is scientific evidence for the BIg Bang; there is none for a "God."
The 'big bang' theory mathematically, concludes that the 'big bang' started from NOTHING. This contradicts the 1st principal of logic, i.e., the Law of Non-Contradiction that states "A cannot be A and non-A in the same relationship at the same time. Since in order for something to go 'bang' it must exist first: it can't be NOTHING! Moron!
Well, no it doesn't. The big bang says our laws of physics break down at about 10 E(-40) seconds. we have no idea what happened before that. And, no, not everything has a cause. Sorry. Another reason religion is false.
Damn!
Actually, quantum physics states exactly that. At the quantum level (which is all that existed 13.7 billion years ago) a particle can be in state A and state ~A simultaneously. Time to go back to school, Logic-Boy. And while you're there, ask your professor about Schroedinger's Cat.
Do you have a point? This article is about human ancestry.
Not having evidence for either does not mean they are equal probability.
Science does not deal with the existance or non-existance of God, science only deals with what is tangible and therefore cannot make any conjectures or commentations on the existance or non-existance of God.
Depends. If someone is stupid enough to say 'we can test god's existence because the earth is 6000 years old', then, yes god can be tested. Of course, no one is THAT stupid...
personaly.. i prefer the big bang.. its a lot more comforting than a creation myth that requires incest to found the species... after all.. whom did adam and eves children marry/have kids with?
hmm?
How long must the myth endure that everyone originated out of a common ancestor in Africa and that life didn't appear in Asia at the same time?
Until some evidence supporting that theory is found.
Mitochondrial DNA shows beyond a doubt that we all have a common ancestor.
Actually there are two major theories:. 1) Humans originated in Africa and then gradually migrated out. At the time the continents were one land mass, or were covered in enough ice to allow travel from one continent to another.
2) Humans did not originate in Africa, but instead evolved separately (and similarly) throughout the world at approximately the same time.
Archaeological evidence supports the first theory as being more accurate. And for those who think that people who work in these fields (Anthropologists, etc) are just guessing and are uneducated, then you are totally naive! Most if not all of these professionals have doctorate degrees! YES REALLY! Than means they ARE doctors in their field of expertise. If a person actually wants to know the how/why evolution is so widely accepted take a college course, and find out for yourself, instead of spewing uneducated, ignorant responses! Also evolution DOES NOT contradict religion, and many churches, including the Catholic church, accept it.
Aren't "Greys" supposed to have enlongated skulls and very flat faces? Hmmm.....
As much as I have admired the Leaky's, finding a skull in 1972 and matching it with a more recent find is not a complete skull and although it may fit, it's not proof of a new human ancestor. It's not on the degree of the fraud of Piltdown man that was perpetrated, but they should keep looking. The fact that there are several branches of ancestors is not a surprise. The fact that people still question evolution and still believe in a powerful imaginary friend that doesn't do anything, is!!!
Mr.von Daniken would be pleased that they found the chariot driver's nogg'in...... now onto more important things.. like the K-Stew\R_Patz rift.....
Excellent!!
Both evolution and creation require faith. You can't prove either. Except that the Bible provides more materials that we can relate with as human creatures. The seven-day week cycle, night and day, the primary food for humans was fruit and vegetables. Science now proves that fruit and vegetables are a healthier lifestyle,etc. All laws in every country are based on the ten commandments. We jail people for stealing, killing. And so on. I find more evidence to believe in creationism.
Religions were invented by man. So it kind of makes sense that they would identify more with our habits. The difference between evolution and creationism is that evolution has hard evidence and creationism has hearsay and myth. I'll take the theory with evidence, thanks.
There is no evidence at all that one species ever evolved into another. None. Zero. If you have some, I'd love to see it because I have looked, and none exists that I can find. Given the absence of this, it begs the question of our origin.
Ping, you are either willfully blind or just lazy. There are literally libraries full of such evidence. Use some initiative and study biology; you can't see what you don't look at. Start with "on the Origin of Species" and actually read it rather than having someone tell you it's just lies.
Ping, for proof you need reading comprehension, and the capacity for logic and research. I know that stuff is hard. But maybe you can give it a try sometime.
Ping, if you have looked and not seen any evidence of evolution, you are blind as a bat. Which, by the way, evolved echolocation.
The simple truth is people like Ping don't WANT to see proof, and accordingly, he very intentionally has not looked for any.
But he'll jump at believing Pat Robertson getting on TV and saying "Evolution says man evolved from chickens – I've never seen a person with a man's head and a chicken's body. Evolution makes no sense..." (I actually saw him say this on TV about 30 years ago).
"There is no evidence at all that one species ever evolved into another. None. Zero. If you have some, I'd love to see it because I have looked, and none exists that I can find."
you know that have practically a complete line for whales right?
It looks like comprehension is not your-all's strong points. I said there is no evidence, at all, that one species ever evolved into another species. I do believe that evolution happens within a species. But there is no evidence that the species evolved into another. With all the millions of years of life on this planet, and all the species that exist, you would think somewhere, there would be fossilized evidence of the entire process where a species started at one thing, then all the intermediary steps, then it turned into something else. Just one. I am just looking for 1 example with hard evidence that this happened. I'll wait....
ping –