Fossil Challenge Old Evolution Theory

  • Thread starter Thread starter Mannyfit75
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

Mannyfit75

Guest
The old theory is that the first and oldest species in our family tree, Homo habilis, evolved into Homo erectus, which then became human, Homo sapiens. But Leakey’s find suggests those two earlier species lived side-by-side about 1.5 million years ago in parts of Kenya for at least half a million years. She and her research colleagues report the discovery in a paper published in Thursday’s journal Nature.
Click to expand...
From news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070808/ap_on_sc/human_evolution

According to this article homo-erectus and Homosapiens live side by side. There was no evolutionary event that occured. This only proves that indeed, man and their so called ancestors lived around the same time.
 
Mannyfit75 said:
From news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070808/ap_on_sc/human_evolution

According to this article homo-erectus and Homosapiens live side by side. There was no evolutionary event that occured. This only proves that indeed, man and their so called ancestors lived around the same time.
Click to expand...
Well, let’s not go too far.

The incompleteness of the fossil record and accuracy problems with dating work both ways, you know.

As much as I’d welcome such findings, only time will tell.
 
Mannyfit75 said:
From news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070808/ap_on_sc/human_evolution

According to this article homo-erectus and Homosapiens live side by side. There was no evolutionary event that occured. This only proves that indeed, man and their so called ancestors lived around the same time.
Click to expand...
That is not what that article says

It says that Homo habilis and Homo erectus possibly lived at the same time.
Nothing earth shattering there

Homo Sapiens came along much later.
 
The theory of evolution doesn’t say that all members of a species evolve into another species.

Therefore if some evolutionary process (favorable mutations) occurred where the offspring of some members of a species began to differ significantly from their “ancestors” that doesn’t preclude the fact that members of the original species continued to have offspring that did not have these new traits.

Over time the original species may become extinct but that doesn’t mean there couldn’t be a time period where fossil remnants from both species are found.

I’m not necessarily arguing for or against evolution but the evidence presented by (even if it were confirmed) or argument of the OP cannot be used as a counter argument to the theory of evolution.
 
Mannyfit75 said:
From news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070808/ap_on_sc/human_evolution

According to this article homo-erectus and Homosapiens live side by side. There was no evolutionary event that occured. This only proves that indeed, man and their so called ancestors lived around the same time.
Click to expand...
The article doesn’t say this at all; you need to re-read it. One shouldn’t try to make his point about scientific matters with sound-bite statements taken out of context. After all, isn’t that what the Protestants do to us with the Bible?
 
Unfortunately, the Theory of Evolution has been used to convince or attempt to convince people to abandon their belief in God. After all, evolution claims we all got here through natural (no God needed) means. It is my concern that young people in particular will be confused by this. In Darwin’s day, the interior workings of the cell were not visible due to the technology limits of the time, but now, it’s obvious that the cell is very complex and is essentially a small factory with interconnected parts.

This fossil find indicates the possibility that there was no evolution. Just as there are many types of dogs with different body shapes and skulls, so could it have been that primates/hominids could have been of different types. This also ties in to recent science that modern humans and neanderthals interbred and that more ‘modern’ dinosaurs lived with their ‘ancestors.’ It seems to me that the dinosaurs could have lived at the same time as modern humans.

Now the interesting thing about making a statement like that is that the reaction is usually emotional and visceral, as opposed to a ‘you know, there might be something to that.’ After all, there are many stories of dragons from around the world. It strikes me as possible that the dragons the humans wrote about could have been dinosaurs.

God bless,
Ed
 
Hello, there’s already a thread about that article. But branching off and evolving a couple new threads just goes to prove evolution even more. 👍 From the article:

Susan Anton, a New York University anthropologist and co-author of the Leakey work, said she expects anti-evolution proponents to seize on the new research, but said it would be a mistake to try to use the new work to show flaws in evolution theory.

“This is not questioning the idea at all of evolution; it is refining some of the specific points,” Anton said. “This is a great example of what science does and religion [rigid fundamentalism] doesn’t do. It’s a continous self-testing process.”

Phil P
 
edwest2 said:
Unfortunately, the Theory of Evolution has been used to convince or attempt to convince people to abandon their belief in God. After all, evolution claims we all got here through natural (no God needed) means. It is my concern that young people in particular will be confused by this.
Click to expand...
But making bad arguments confuses people and provides fodder for people to discount the Catholic viewpoint.

The fact that God may have set up Evolution as the means of creation is not contrary to our belief. True faith is not threatened by science.

What actually shows more power? Setting up a system so beautiful that it could go from the Big Bang to the human being unassisted vs creating a universe intact and a process that requires constant tweaking.
 
According to this article homo-erectus and Homosapiens live side by side. There was no evolutionary event that occured. This only proves that indeed, man and their so called ancestors lived around the same time.
Click to expand...
Homo Erectus and Homo Habilus lived side by side, according to the article, not Homo Sapiens. That doesn’t even mean that one doesn’t come from the other, as another poster explained, because an offshoot species doesn’t require that the old species die out. In fact, it would be EXTREMELY unusual for the “old” species to wholly transition into the new one (I’m not aware of any suggestions that this has ever occured, in fact).

Even if one didn’t come from the other, it wouldn’t disprove the evolution of Homo Sapiens from one of them. It would just indicate that our assumption of a connection was wrong. This has happened before; we used to think that Neanderthals were our ancestors, but now it’s generally believed that they were simply a contemporary species that was very similar to our own (which, as demonstrated above, doesn’t even rule out that we might be descended from them anyway).

Peace and God bless!
 
Artifacts have been found showing man and dinosaurs:

s8int.com/dinolit2.html

It is scientific to raise valid questions. What is more powerful is Jesus Christ coming to earth and raising the dead, giving sight to the blind and commanding the wind. Jesus demonstrated what God could do.

This isn’t some contest. I contend that science is being used improperly by those who want to promote a naturalistic (no God) world view.

God bless,
Ed
 
edwest2 said:
Artifacts have been found showing man and dinosaurs:

s8int.com/dinolit2.html

It is scientific to raise valid questions. What is more powerful is Jesus Christ coming to earth and raising the dead, giving sight to the blind and commanding the wind. Jesus demonstrated what God could do.

This isn’t some contest. I contend that science is being used improperly by those who want to promote a naturalistic (no God) world view.

God bless,
Ed
Click to expand...
You have a noble goal that I agree with.

However, I think trying to counter the use of evolution as a means to destroy faith in God with arguments against evolution is the wrong approach.

A better approach is to show how faith and science are compatible. Then whether someone believes in evolution (or any other fact/theory) becomes irrelevant.
 
edwest2 said:
This isn’t some contest. I contend that science is being used improperly by those who want to promote a naturalistic (no God) world view.
Click to expand...
you’ve stated again and again in threads that you feel science is usd impropely…and nobody is disagreeing with this point…

that it may or may not be used improperly does not have any effect on the science itself.

religion has been used improperly to do some bad things…but that doesn’t take anything away from its truth.

truth does not contradict one another… if science can reveal any truh to us we should be open to learn from it… not be suspicious and closed against it. After all, God gave us the ability to use science to find truth.

regardless of human motives… the science itself is not responsible for what people do with it.
 
That article has a number of glaring errors

“… like chimps and apes.” Chips are apes. As are gorillas, banoboes, gibbons, orangutans, and hominids. There is either a missing “other” or a lack of understanding of the terms being used.

Further, that two species lived at the same time doesn’t preclude one having evolved from the other, if the other is older. See also Wolves and Dogs. Or the squirrels on both sides of the grand canyon. or the 2-5 species of newt around mile-long lake (IIRC).

It’s obviously not written by someone up on evolution.

Further, classical “Darwinian” Evolution has been heavily refined; Dawkins’ excellent monographs shed a lot of light on the mechanics of speciation.
 
No one is going to respond to the link I posted? I assure you, I’m not a stereotype or a Republican (I have no party affiliation), or anti-science. However, when I do find information that suggests humans and dinosaurs lived together in the time after Christ, I think that raises some important questions.

God bless,
Ed
 
edwest2 said:
Artifacts have been found showing man and dinosaurs:

s8int.com/dinolit2.html
Click to expand...
There are similar pieces of artwork from the same culture and period showing humans with centaurs, mermaids, satyrs, cyclops, women turning into trees, etc. They are not identical with undoctored photographs. Their intention may not even have been primarily to show something that they had seen themselves or knew actually existed.

Have you ever seen a medieval bestiary? bestiary.ca/ They were illustrating pictures of animals they had never seen, only heard about in stories. Take a look at the elephant, as an example:
bestiary.ca/beasts/beast77.htm

penelope.uchicago.edu/~grout/encyclopaedia_romana/britannia/anglo-saxon/flowers/bestiary.html is an interesting article on the purpose of some of these animals as allegorical figures in artwork and tales, rather than as a biological study.
 
edwest2 said:
No one is going to respond to the link I posted?
Click to expand...
Most folks would be willing to wait more than 30 minutes to start claiming that their posts are being willfully ignored or somehow slighted.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top