Ape fossil bridges evolutionary gap

[Gottle_of_Geer]

msnbc.msn.com/id/6522090/

Just curious what the creationists and evolutionists think.

If its a hoax, how did they pull it off? Or is this insurmountable evidence showing evolution?

Some people would not be convinced even if Homo habilis, Homo erectus, and Homo Neanderthalensis came back from the dead ​

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

rossum:

Since, in simple terms, the definition of an ape is “a primate without a tail” it is not surprising that it looks like an ape. Remember that humans are also primates and that humans have no tails.

Yes boys and girls, humans are apes.

rossum

There are cases of human beings being born with very rudimentary tails​

There is an example in the late Bernard Heuvelmans’ book “On the Track of Unknown Animals” ##

 

[David_E.Mahony]

Alas, poor Yorrick! I did not know him as well as I thought I did.

DEM

 

[Apologia100]

## Some people would not be convinced even if Homo habilis, Homo erectus, and Homo Neanderthalensis came back from the dead ##

What about australopithicenes aforensis, a. robustus, a. africanus?

 

[SCTA-1]

Apologia100:

What about australopithicenes aforensis, a. robustus, a. africanus?

From what I understand when God Created everything,Creation itself was perfect.There was no death and no chaos in Creation.But we know that there was death and chaos for millions of years here on earth.So that means that all our ancestors that were evolving were dying until they evolved into two people that God eventually deemed human and infused a soul.That means that Paradise must have been created then when the real Adam and Eve were finally deemed in the likeness of God.But what about all the death and chaos before that? I thought that Paradise came first.Can you see the problem here? Evolution and death for millions of years then finally Adam and Eve or Adam and Eve being here millions of years ago then their future relatives going back to apes.Man, I can’t figure this out!

 

[All4lifetoo]

SCTA-1:

From what I understand when God Created everything,Creation itself was perfect.There was no death and no chaos in Creation.But we know that there was death and chaos for millions of years here on earth.So that means that all our ancestors that were evolving were dying until they evolved into two people that God eventually deemed human and infused a soul.That means that Paradise must have been created then when the real Adam and Eve were finally deemed in the likeness of God.But what about all the death and chaos before that? I thought that Paradise came first.Can you see the problem here? Evolution and death for millions of years then finally Adam and Eve or Adam and Eve being here millions of years ago then their future relatives going back to apes.Man, I can’t figure this out!

Yes, that is what bothers me too. I don’t understand how there could be death in the world, prior to man’s offense if death didn’t enter it until the original sin. The only way I can figure it is that all the animals had mortal, not immortal souls, and that the truth that death entered into the world after man’s sin means that those with immortal souls (man) would now suffer earthly death in the same manner as those with mortal souls. I accept the teaching that science and Divine Revelation cannot contradict each other so there must be an explaination. Some day we will understand.

 

[Apologia100]

All4lifetoo:

Yes, that is what bothers me too. I don’t understand how there could be death in the world, prior to man’s offense if death didn’t enter it until the original sin. The only way I can figure it is that all the animals had mortal, not immortal souls, and that the truth that death entered into the world after man’s sin means that those with immortal souls (man) would now suffer earthly death in the same manner as those with mortal souls. I accept the teaching that science and Divine Revelation cannot contradict each other so there must be an explaination. Some day we will understand.

Because the story of genesis is an alagorical one. Adam brought us spiritual death, Jesus brought us spritual life. If Jesus came to “reverse” the sin of Adam, we would never die physically. Didn’t Jesus come to “defeat death”? Genesis is a story that conveys a moral truth that man, left to his own will, produces death from which only God can save us.

 

[buffalo]

AndyF:

Hi Buffalo!

Sure, other possibles,no problem. The only rule I would insist is in the ground rules, and that is to state what earthly date(time line) an event occured relative to an agreed known time an event occured in this dimension.

For instance, some may advance a theory that Adam and Eve were inserted during the copper age, 8000(?) or so years ago, and that implies present time as the relation.

(It is beginning to look like science is pretty close to proving the great flood occured 7600 years ago, Nat. Geog.2004)

You immediatly find yourself in trouble if you accept the 8000 year theory, as day 1 was the creation of the earth. Therefore, the earth was created sometime quite near to 8000 years ago.

All other factors should fit as well. If some agree the earth creation event was formed 4 billion years ago+ -, (our timeline) then what was happening on earth from year 3,999,992,000 back to year 1, assuming year 1 was the year the last “earth building” meteorite hit the earth.

We can go deeper. We need to place it in context of other living creatures as well, as there is but one day difference between us in creation. We would then have to explain why primate DNA is 98% exactly to man’s, and limit all event explainations to the timespan of 8000 years, if that is when you say He made man, which is day 5(if I remember my Genesis,Story 1) of that time line.

Frankly, the hair pulling is a pain, I would prefer to just be content that God loves us and He placed us in dominion over all the other animals. Maybe He thought it would be good for us to be formed gradually into our present, what a better sanctifying process. It doesn’t detract one iota from the fact we are NOW in His image, that He took mud(primal matter,chemical compounds) to form us.

Also, who’s to say God’s years are the same as ours?, and if time is relative, then 1 day to create man is just as irrelevant as 3 million years.

We’re here, rejoice!!

Andy

Symmetry could provide the answer. Why wouldn’t othe living things have similar DNA. Seems perfectly reasonable. They have the same basic elements also. This really doesn’t give proof either way. We are made up of the elements of stars too.

 

[buffalo]

tcaseyrochester:

EXACTLY! But many (note I did not say all) Christians seem so threatened by it.

Genesis even talks of the big bang! “and God said let their be light, and their was light…” The first matter produced by the Big Bang was PHOTONS!

I was once in our local Science Museum admiring an exhibit regarding early hominids (I think they were Homo Erectus). A mom came up anxiously and took her two children standing next to me by the arms and hurrien them away, saying “we do not nee to look at that exhibit, do we, because we know where we came from…”

I just shook my head.

Again, I have to ask, who are we to pretend to be able to comprehend the methods of He who made us?

In reality the materialists were threatened by the Big Bang theory and had a real hard time digesting it because it essentially had a beginning. Materialists cannot allow a beginning.

 

[tcaseyrochester]

All4lifetoo:

Yes, that is what bothers me too. I don’t understand how there could be death in the world, prior to man’s offense if death didn’t enter it until the original sin. The only way I can figure it is that all the animals had mortal, not immortal souls, and that the truth that death entered into the world after man’s sin means that those with immortal souls (man) would now suffer earthly death in the same manner as those with mortal souls. I accept the teaching that science and Divine Revelation cannot contradict each other so there must be an explaination. Some day we will understand.

I thought that after the fall Adam and Eve were caste out of the garden, meaning alegorically out of Heaven and here, to Earth??? Could God have created the first Homo Sapiens at that moment? There is no answer, of course, but that is my over-riding point…we have to accept on Faith that God’s revelation is consistent with the earthly evidence left behind thoughout history.

 

[rossum]

clmowry:

Nope.

If you’d like to tell me that humans and apes share similarities.

They do.

That scientist place human in the same category as they place apes.

Not precisely, ape and human are at different levels in the nested hierarchy. Human includes only members of a single extant species, Homo sapiens. Ape (I take that to mean Hominidae) is a wider category which includes members of five extant species: Bonobos, Chimpanzees, Gorillas, Humans and Orangutans. The new fossil seems to come after the Gibbons split off but before the Hominidae diversified, so it is a possible ancestor for all of the extant Great Apes.

Moving up the classifications, humans are also simultaneously primates, placental mammals, tetrapods, vertebrates, bilaterians and eukaryotes. This is not a complete list, for the full details go to the Tree of Life webpage.

As you go from Homo sapiens to the root of the tree each successive category is progressively wider and includes all of the previous categories. For example, the category tetrapod includes all placental mammals which includes all primates which includes all apes which includes all humans.

But, the terms are not synonymous.

Agreed. “Car” and “Ford Mustang” are not synonyms, yet a Ford Mustang is still a car.

rossum

 

[SocaliCatholic]

rossum:

The ultimate truth is that there is no Ultimate Truth.

What? Can you please explain this?? How is this possible?

 

[rossum]

SocaliCatholic:

What? Can you please explain this?? How is this possible?

The quote in my sig is a good modern summary of the Buddhist attitude to reality. For a more traditional version try:

As meteors, a fault of vision, as a lamp,
A mock show, dew drops, or a bubble,
A dream, a lightning flash, or a cloud,
So should one view what is conditioned.

Diamond sutra 32

These things not quite what they appear to be initially and are all transient. The Buddhist attitude to reality is that everything is transient, and is not what it appears to be on the surface.

The original source of my sig is Mark Siderits, “Thinking on Empty: Madhyamika Anti-Realism and Canons of Rationality” in S Biderman and B.A. Schaufstein, eds, Rationality In Question (1989). Dordrectht: Brill.

I have not read Siderits but saw the quote in a piece on Nagarjuna. The “Madhyamika” in Siderits’ title refers to the religious and philosophical school of Buddhism that Nagarjuna founded. I have seen the same quote again in other places in reference to the Madhyamika and Nagarjuna - it seems quite popular. The quote is intentionally paradoxical; paradox is necessary to remind us that words are insufficient when trying to describe the fundamental nature of reality.

Nagarjuna’s magnum opus is the Mulamadhyamakarika which is a good place to start if you want to learn more about his ideas.

rossum

 

[SocaliCatholic]

rossum:

The quote in my sig is a good modern summary of the Buddhist attitude to reality. For a more traditional version try:

These things not quite what they appear to be initially and are all transient. The Buddhist attitude to reality is that everything is transient, and is not what it appears to be on the surface.

The original source of my sig is Mark Siderits, “Thinking on Empty: Madhyamika Anti-Realism and Canons of Rationality” in S Biderman and B.A. Schaufstein, eds, Rationality In Question (1989). Dordrectht: Brill.

I have not read Siderits but saw the quote in a piece on Nagarjuna. The “Madhyamika” in Siderits’ title refers to the religious and philosophical school of Buddhism that Nagarjuna founded. I have seen the same quote again in other places in reference to the Madhyamika and Nagarjuna - it seems quite popular. The quote is intentionally paradoxical; paradox is necessary to remind us that words are insufficient when trying to describe the fundamental nature of reality.

Nagarjuna’s magnum opus is the Mulamadhyamakarika which is a good place to start if you want to learn more about his ideas.

rossum

Thanks for that.

Do you as a scientist believe in the Buddhist attitude of reality or is it something that you found interesting but dont take seriously?

It appears that the content of your posts are elegantly logical, yet your signature appears that you might also believe something that is apparently paradoxical.

 

[rlg94086]

rossum:

The quote in my sig is a good modern summary of the Buddhist attitude to reality. For a more traditional version try…

…The quote is intentionally paradoxical; paradox is necessary to remind us that words are insufficient when trying to describe the fundamental nature of reality.

Nagarjuna’s magnum opus is the Mulamadhyamakarika which is a good place to start if you want to learn more about his ideas.

rossum

I studied Tibetan Buddhism…much ado about nothingness. Enjoyed some study of paradoxes ala W.V. Quine, but I was frustrated by the stupidity of ontological relativity and more interested in mathematical logic.

God bless you in your journeys,
rlg

 

[rossum]

SocaliCatholic,

This discussion is off topic in this thread, so I have opened a new thread called “Much ado about nothingness” in the Non-Catholic Religions forum.

Thanks to rlg94086 for the new thread’s title and for the good wishes.

rossum

 

[Scott_Waddell]

Catholic Guide to evolution and explanations of origins:

Step 1: Look in the index of the Catechism for things like “origins”, “science”, etc. and read all relevant sections.

Step 2: Do the same for Ott’s Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma

Step 3: Determine if you see anything teachings there that scientific inquiry threatens.

Step 4: When you determine there are no threats there (which there aren’t), resume acting like a normal human being instead of some Scope’s-monkey-trial-fundie-yahoo.

Scott

 

[asquared]

arguements against evolution would be helped if humans did not act so much like animals a lot of the time.

 

[larryo]

## Some people would not be convinced even if Homo habilis, Homo erectus, and Homo Neanderthalensis came back from the dead ##

I read the article and there is nothing in it that constitutes “insurmountable” evidence of evolution from ape to man. That indeed may be a possibility worth pursuing but it has certainly not been conclusively proven one way or the other. The article itself alluded to the paucity of the fossil record. The full truth, as with many other theories, may never be proven; however, the pursuit of true knowledge is always worthwhile and the results can never contradict the teachings of the Catholic Church.

 

[hecd2]

msnbc.msn.com/id/6522090/

Just curious what the creationists and evolutionists think.

If its a hoax, how did they pull it off? Or is this insurmountable evidence showing evolution?

Dear Socali, It is neither a hoax nor insurmountable evidence for evolution.

No single fossil on its own could ever be ‘insurmountable evidence showing evolution’.

This ( Pierolapithecus catalaunicus *gen and sp nov) *dates from 13 million years ago and is a fascinating find whatever the conclusions of its place in hominid and human evolution. (Moya-Sola, 'Pierolapithecus catalaunicus, a new Middle Miocene Great Ape from Spain, Science 306, 1339 - 1350, Nov 2004.)

Pierolapithecus has significant trannsitional features between monkeys and apes: compared to Lower miocene apes the muzzle is reduced, the rib cage and vertebrae are evidence for an upright posture; but its manus and pes are a mixture of derived (flexible wrists) and primitive ( small hand and straight fingers) characteristics. There are many characteristics of the cranium and post-cranial skeleton that show a mixture of primitive and derived characteristics - I’d be happy to post a comprehensive review of these characteristics if anyone would like them.

The fact is that palaeontologists currently disagree about the phylogenetic position of Pierolapithecus. The team that discovered it puts it at the branch between great apes and lesser apes. Some palaeontologists put it closer to African apes and hence to humans. On the other hand some palaeontologists make it more primitive and do not think it is part of the group that led to living apes .

In any case, it is a great fossil, and one way or another it will shed light on the evolution of the hominids.

Professional scientists concentrate on what fossils like this tell them about the details of evolution, rather than on whether evolution existed at all.

Alec
evolutionpages.com