Skull of Homo erectus throws story of human evolution into disarray(theguardian.com)
theguardian.com
Skull of Homo erectus throws story of human evolution into disarray
http://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/oct/17/skull-homo-erectus-human-evolution
8 comments
I love this quotes on splitters v lumpers:
> splitters make very small units – their critics say that if they can tell two animals apart, they place them in different genera … and if they cannot tell them apart, they place them in different species. … Lumpers make large units – their critics say that if a carnivore is neither a dog nor a bear, they call it a cat.
> splitters make very small units – their critics say that if they can tell two animals apart, they place them in different genera … and if they cannot tell them apart, they place them in different species. … Lumpers make large units – their critics say that if a carnivore is neither a dog nor a bear, they call it a cat.
In a TED talk about dinosaurs[1], Jack Horner claims that many dinosaur species are probably the same specimen at a different stage of development (baby, child, adult), but that paleontologists have classified them as separate partially because they had no way of telling at what stage of development a fossil is (for which he has a solution, which is looking at the inner structure of the fossilized bone), but also partially because every paleontologist wants to discover his or her own dinosaur.
I wonder if that applies here as well.
[1] http://www.ted.com/talks/jack_horner_shape_shifting_dinosaur...
I wonder if that applies here as well.
[1] http://www.ted.com/talks/jack_horner_shape_shifting_dinosaur...
TBH I've always thought that variations in skulls unearthed and labelled as different genus seemed not to be that varied next to the variation in modern people. About a year ago I tried to unearth a visual comparison that would show the variation of "modern" skulls so it could be compared - anyone know of such a work?
It's the same mistake made with the dinosaurs (see eg http://www.ted.com/talks/jack_horner_shape_shifting_dinosaur...) assuming that one can tell how an animal grew by analogy and that heterogeneity necessarily shows speciation.
Is this really the first time that differently formed skulls have been found together in an archaeological dig. That's surprising isn't it?
Equally well, just because 5 skulls were found together why does one then have to declare them all to be H.Erectus, presumably there are other methods of categorisation relied on to establish that point?
It's the same mistake made with the dinosaurs (see eg http://www.ted.com/talks/jack_horner_shape_shifting_dinosaur...) assuming that one can tell how an animal grew by analogy and that heterogeneity necessarily shows speciation.
Is this really the first time that differently formed skulls have been found together in an archaeological dig. That's surprising isn't it?
Equally well, just because 5 skulls were found together why does one then have to declare them all to be H.Erectus, presumably there are other methods of categorisation relied on to establish that point?
Because if they died together, they're part of the same group. If some are small skulls (ie. children) and some adults (a family that died in a natural disaster, landslide, ... say), then they obviously interbreeded, at which point they would be re-classified as only one species, and maybe something other than genetical differences account for the differences in skulls.
Is this anything other than the species problem [0]? Based on this quote:
> "If you found the Dmanisi skulls at isolated sites in Africa, some people would give them different species names. But one population can have all this variation. We are using five or six names, but they could all be from one lineage."
it sounds like it's just a semantic question of how exactly the "species" are divided up logically.
[0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species_problem
> "If you found the Dmanisi skulls at isolated sites in Africa, some people would give them different species names. But one population can have all this variation. We are using five or six names, but they could all be from one lineage."
it sounds like it's just a semantic question of how exactly the "species" are divided up logically.
[0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species_problem
Not quite. If skulls are segregated by morphology AND time and/or distance that is evidence that there are two distinct species, i.e. if the big skulls are always over here and the little ones are always over there (or the big ones are always in this layer and the little ones always in that).
But if you find different morphologies together in the same time and place that is evidence that they were all members of the same species because it is rare to have two different species occupying the same ecological niche.
But if you find different morphologies together in the same time and place that is evidence that they were all members of the same species because it is rare to have two different species occupying the same ecological niche.
Well, inevitably its partly that.
But it seems there are is a real finding here even if we avoid the word species entirely. Basically it's evidence of morphological diversity within even a very narrow definition of the word species. If you know that bulldogs and Yorkshire terriers are the same species it's a lot easier to argue that your fossil of a great Dane is too, even though it looks very different. That means you don't need millions of years to evolve it. If the diversity is there in the species, selective pressures can make a different looking variety/subspecies quickly.
Modern humans are not that diverse in size. An adult males weigh 50-85kgs. If you find a population of individuals weiging 120ks, you will conclude that these are probably a different species.
But it seems there are is a real finding here even if we avoid the word species entirely. Basically it's evidence of morphological diversity within even a very narrow definition of the word species. If you know that bulldogs and Yorkshire terriers are the same species it's a lot easier to argue that your fossil of a great Dane is too, even though it looks very different. That means you don't need millions of years to evolve it. If the diversity is there in the species, selective pressures can make a different looking variety/subspecies quickly.
Modern humans are not that diverse in size. An adult males weigh 50-85kgs. If you find a population of individuals weiging 120ks, you will conclude that these are probably a different species.
Modern humans are not that diverse in size. An adult males weigh 50-85kgs. If you find a population of individuals weiging 120ks, you will conclude that these are probably a different species.
Haven't been in the U.S. much, have you? :-(
Haven't been in the U.S. much, have you? :-(
At least one in two people are now overweight or obese in more than half of the 34 OECD countries
> Modern humans are not that diverse in size. An adult males weigh 50-85kgs.
Or a little less, or a lot more.
> If you find a population of individuals weiging 120ks, you will conclude that these are probably a different species.
Assumign "ks" is supposed to be "kg", it might just be a gathering of NFL players. [1]
[1] http://www.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=merron/041124_r...
Or a little less, or a lot more.
> If you find a population of individuals weiging 120ks, you will conclude that these are probably a different species.
Assumign "ks" is supposed to be "kg", it might just be a gathering of NFL players. [1]
[1] http://www.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=merron/041124_r...
This is a very strange sentence:
"Homo is the genus of great apes that emerged around 2.4m years ago and includes modern humans."
That is not a normal way to describe the ancestry of humans. In between apes and humans were the Australopithecus:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australopithecus
The genus homo is usually said to have started with homo habilis:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_habilis
Normally one doesn't refer to one genus as being part of another genus.
Also the date "2.4m years ago" is controversial. If homo habilis is reclassified as australopithecus, then the genus homo emerges much more recently than 2.4 million years ago.
"Homo is the genus of great apes that emerged around 2.4m years ago and includes modern humans."
That is not a normal way to describe the ancestry of humans. In between apes and humans were the Australopithecus:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australopithecus
The genus homo is usually said to have started with homo habilis:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_habilis
Normally one doesn't refer to one genus as being part of another genus.
Also the date "2.4m years ago" is controversial. If homo habilis is reclassified as australopithecus, then the genus homo emerges much more recently than 2.4 million years ago.
It is correct. Homo is a genus of great apes. It emerged around 2.4 million years ago. And it does include modern humans (Homo Sapiens).
I'm not sure which part you're taking issue with?
> Normally one doesn't refer to one genus as being part of another genus.
That's right. Australopithecus and Homo are different genera.
> between apes and humans
Not sure what you're saying here. Humans and Australopithecines are both apes.
I'm not sure which part you're taking issue with?
> Normally one doesn't refer to one genus as being part of another genus.
That's right. Australopithecus and Homo are different genera.
> between apes and humans
Not sure what you're saying here. Humans and Australopithecines are both apes.
> "Homo is the genus of great apes that emerged around 2.4m years ago and includes modern humans."
This implies that we are apes.
Quoting Wikipedia:
The composition of a genus is determined by a taxonomist. The standards for genus classification are not strictly codified, so different authorities often produce different classifications for genera.
This implies that we are apes.
Quoting Wikipedia:
The composition of a genus is determined by a taxonomist. The standards for genus classification are not strictly codified, so different authorities often produce different classifications for genera.
[deleted]
I'm amazed that we are still finding new fossils all the time. What is the story usually like of how this happens? Farmer digs a hole for a fencepost, finds a weird skull, calls 1-800-ANTHROPOLOGIST? I'm being flippant but I'm genuinely curious how fossils like this continue to be discovered.
My father was a paleontologist, albeit 30 years ago. I think what is happening with human fossils is that we have/are reaching a critical mass of knowledge that allows us to pinpoint with greater accuracy where to look. The thing starts to become self-perpetuating.
For fossils in general, there are more of us physically wandering on the surface of the planet, and we collectively are more familiar with what is a fossil, which leads to more discoveries.
As well, due to machinery such as excavators and tunnel diggers, we are digging in places we haven't dug before, either deeper or in hard-to-access rocks.
The big unexplored areas is (1) beneath the deserts, especially the Sahara, and (2) under the shallow seas.
For fossils in general, there are more of us physically wandering on the surface of the planet, and we collectively are more familiar with what is a fossil, which leads to more discoveries.
As well, due to machinery such as excavators and tunnel diggers, we are digging in places we haven't dug before, either deeper or in hard-to-access rocks.
The big unexplored areas is (1) beneath the deserts, especially the Sahara, and (2) under the shallow seas.
This is entirely unrelated, but a cool story nonetheless (too bad the details elude me, I will make them up): There was a big archaeological site discovered in an island in Africa, and archaeologists needed to search a large area for findings. They asked locals to help, and paid them for every piece of ancient artifact they would find and bring back.
The locals started smashing large ancient vases and statues they found into small pieces to get paid more.
The locals started smashing large ancient vases and statues they found into small pieces to get paid more.
You always have to be careful about what you incentivize. There are similar classic stories about bounties on cobras and rats which resulted in breeding more cobras and snakes:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cobra_effect
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cobra_effect
Doesn't this potentially simplify the story?
Agree, the title is link bait for creationists
Of course, this is a British publication and so this wouldn't have occurred to the headline editor. It certainly didn't occur to me until you mentioned it.
Most Brits would read that as disarray about the timeline of human evolution, not a challenge to the 'story'.
Most Brits would read that as disarray about the timeline of human evolution, not a challenge to the 'story'.
[previously-deleted comment]: I wonder what it's like to live in a country where you don't have to give a second thought to statements based on potentially massive differences in beliefs about the age of the universe.
Turn that question around - "I wonder what it's like to live in a country where you don't have to give a second thought to statements derived from scientific investigation rather than religious dogma then move to the US?'
I can answer that one for you. It's shocking. I had no idea, nor do I believe that most Europeans have any idea, just what a strong hold primitive interpretations of religion still holds over a huge percentage of a developed first world society.
I can answer that one for you. It's shocking. I had no idea, nor do I believe that most Europeans have any idea, just what a strong hold primitive interpretations of religion still holds over a huge percentage of a developed first world society.
The US is economically first world but cognitively third world
:)
Sadly we do have creationists in the UK, as this recent story demonstrates: http://www.theguardian.com/education/2013/oct/11/jewish-scho...
I live[d] in Sweden. There has been lots of immigration. You can describe the present situation like that the Social democrat party is actively courting the religious muslim vote and pushing homophobia and anti semitism under the carpet. The press isn't so interested in looking at this, either.
This has been coming slowly for 5-10 years. It wouldn't surprise me if tolerance for denial of evolution of humans comes in a few more years.
This has been coming slowly for 5-10 years. It wouldn't surprise me if tolerance for denial of evolution of humans comes in a few more years.
[deleted](1)
@jcromartie — Put it this way: my ten year old would laugh at anyone who thought the universe was only a few thousand years old as would his 8-year-old brother.
@jcromartie Why did you delete your comment? I thought it was insightful. I don't live in a world where we worry about such things. Just knowing that you do is interesting.
I didn't want it to get too political.
That's too simple of a statement, though. This finding doesn't actually exclude creationism - the common view among creationists has always been that all these "species", including Homo Erectus, are simply humans.
*edit: clarity, grammar.
*edit: clarity, grammar.
Since Creationism is an interpretive framework rather than a hypothesis with falsifiable predictions, it cannot be excluded. Any observation can be rationalized within Creationism.
I'm less certain than you are about that... The axiom that God doesn't exist is exactly on the same level as the one that he does. Both of them require the same type of assumption. As for being falsifiable, there still isn't any evidence for macro-evolution, so it isn't beyond the state of hypothesis (yet?). Evidence of that kind would certainly falsify the predictions of creationism. However, there is no evidence for the "natural" origin of new species at this point, only for adaptation.
> The axiom that God doesn't exist is exactly on the same level as the one that he does.
Yes, generally, P and ~P are either both claims subject to empirical investigation, or both claims not subject to empirical investigation. "God exists" and "God does not exists" are not in the class of claims subject to empirical investigation.
That doesn't contradict anything I said (in fact, its barely even relevant to anything I said; Creationism, after all, is not the same thing as the claim that God exists, though it necessarily assumes that claim; to the extent its relevant to what I said, it supports my note that Creationism isn't an empirically falsifiable position.)
> As for being falsifiable, there still isn't any evidence for macro-evolution
Not only is there abundant evidence of macro-evolution, theories about macro-evolution make specific predictions about future observations which are falsifiable. Creationism does not make any falsifiable predictions.
> Evidence of that kind would certainly falsify the predictions of creationism.
No, evidence of macro-evolution (which exists, abundantly) doesn't falsify predictions of Creationism, because Creationism has no predictions to falsify. Evidence of macro-evolution is readily explained within the interpretive framework of Creationism (as is pretty much anything within any interpretive framework which presupposes the existence of an all-powerful supernatural entity.)
Yes, generally, P and ~P are either both claims subject to empirical investigation, or both claims not subject to empirical investigation. "God exists" and "God does not exists" are not in the class of claims subject to empirical investigation.
That doesn't contradict anything I said (in fact, its barely even relevant to anything I said; Creationism, after all, is not the same thing as the claim that God exists, though it necessarily assumes that claim; to the extent its relevant to what I said, it supports my note that Creationism isn't an empirically falsifiable position.)
> As for being falsifiable, there still isn't any evidence for macro-evolution
Not only is there abundant evidence of macro-evolution, theories about macro-evolution make specific predictions about future observations which are falsifiable. Creationism does not make any falsifiable predictions.
> Evidence of that kind would certainly falsify the predictions of creationism.
No, evidence of macro-evolution (which exists, abundantly) doesn't falsify predictions of Creationism, because Creationism has no predictions to falsify. Evidence of macro-evolution is readily explained within the interpretive framework of Creationism (as is pretty much anything within any interpretive framework which presupposes the existence of an all-powerful supernatural entity.)
>>"God exists" and "God does not exists" are not in the class of claims subject to empirical investigation.
That depends very much on your definition of God and on whether you require the empiricism to be [universally] objective or, for example, would consider that a personal experience of your own with God to be evidence on which to base your own belief.
>>Creationism does not make any falsifiable predictions.
Again that depends entirely on the definition of Creationism.
As an aside I find it interesting to speculate as to what might become falsifiable [to some extent or other] in the future. Imagine we make contact with an alien race and they have photos of the Earth showing it was/wasn't ever in any significant flood in the region of the Eastern Mediterranean.
That depends very much on your definition of God and on whether you require the empiricism to be [universally] objective or, for example, would consider that a personal experience of your own with God to be evidence on which to base your own belief.
>>Creationism does not make any falsifiable predictions.
Again that depends entirely on the definition of Creationism.
As an aside I find it interesting to speculate as to what might become falsifiable [to some extent or other] in the future. Imagine we make contact with an alien race and they have photos of the Earth showing it was/wasn't ever in any significant flood in the region of the Eastern Mediterranean.
> That depends very much on your definition of God
Well, sure, but for any of the usual definitions, the point (with the note below) holds.
> on whether you require the empiricism to be [universally] objective or, for example, would consider that a personal experience of your own with God to be evidence on which to base your own belief.
True, I should have referred to scientific empiricism which includes objectivity (for which "universally" is superfluous).
> Again that depends entirely on the definition of Creationism.
Yes, any claim depends on the definition of the words used in it. Creationism, however, like God, has a fairly well-established meaning for which the statement holds (with the note above.)
> As an aside I find it interesting to speculate as to what might become falsifiable [to some extent or other] in the future. Imagine we make contact with an alien race and they have photos of the Earth showing it was/wasn't ever in any significant flood in the region of the Eastern Mediterranean.
1. We know of significant floods near the region of the Eastern Mediterranean, 2. In terms of Biblical literalism, the claim is of a global flood, not a flood in the region of the Eastern Mediterranean, 3. I will note again that any evidence can be rationalized in the context of an interpretive framework that includes an all-powerful supernatural being (of course, "Aliens have an equivalent of Photoshop" doesn't even require invoking an all-powerful or supernatural being.)
Well, sure, but for any of the usual definitions, the point (with the note below) holds.
> on whether you require the empiricism to be [universally] objective or, for example, would consider that a personal experience of your own with God to be evidence on which to base your own belief.
True, I should have referred to scientific empiricism which includes objectivity (for which "universally" is superfluous).
> Again that depends entirely on the definition of Creationism.
Yes, any claim depends on the definition of the words used in it. Creationism, however, like God, has a fairly well-established meaning for which the statement holds (with the note above.)
> As an aside I find it interesting to speculate as to what might become falsifiable [to some extent or other] in the future. Imagine we make contact with an alien race and they have photos of the Earth showing it was/wasn't ever in any significant flood in the region of the Eastern Mediterranean.
1. We know of significant floods near the region of the Eastern Mediterranean, 2. In terms of Biblical literalism, the claim is of a global flood, not a flood in the region of the Eastern Mediterranean, 3. I will note again that any evidence can be rationalized in the context of an interpretive framework that includes an all-powerful supernatural being (of course, "Aliens have an equivalent of Photoshop" doesn't even require invoking an all-powerful or supernatural being.)
>The axiom that God doesn't exist is exactly on the same level as the one that he does. Both of them require the same type of assumption.
I'm with you on this. On some level, something caused the universe to exist. The explanations are: a Creator did it; or causality has no meaning outside of existence, so a first cause isn't necessary.
Either of those axioms requires an assumption, and once you make such an assumption, everything else is filtered through that lens.
I'm with you on this. On some level, something caused the universe to exist. The explanations are: a Creator did it; or causality has no meaning outside of existence, so a first cause isn't necessary.
Either of those axioms requires an assumption, and once you make such an assumption, everything else is filtered through that lens.
But those are not any kind of axiom, because neither is a self-evident or clearly correct version of truth.
Two poor examples of an axiom are not "on the same level" as axioms.
>Either of those axioms requires an assumption, and once you make such an assumption, everything else is filtered through that lens.
What assumption does atheism make? None.
From the cosmologists' point of view, it is not clear that the cause of our observable universe need be available to our study within that observable universe. There is no assumption being made; it is simply an unanswered question, about which we are unsure we will ever have a useful answer.
Two poor examples of an axiom are not "on the same level" as axioms.
>Either of those axioms requires an assumption, and once you make such an assumption, everything else is filtered through that lens.
What assumption does atheism make? None.
From the cosmologists' point of view, it is not clear that the cause of our observable universe need be available to our study within that observable universe. There is no assumption being made; it is simply an unanswered question, about which we are unsure we will ever have a useful answer.
>What assumption does atheism make? None.
Atheism makes the assumption there is no God (read creator).
Creationism makes the assumption there is a creator.
>There is no assumption being made; it is simply an unanswered question, about which we are unsure we will ever have a useful answer.
Atheism tries to answer the question without the use of a creative being and creationism tries to answer it with the use of a creative being.
There is no difference between the two. Both make assumptions. Both have the possibility of being incorrect.
Atheism makes the assumption there is no God (read creator).
Creationism makes the assumption there is a creator.
>There is no assumption being made; it is simply an unanswered question, about which we are unsure we will ever have a useful answer.
Atheism tries to answer the question without the use of a creative being and creationism tries to answer it with the use of a creative being.
There is no difference between the two. Both make assumptions. Both have the possibility of being incorrect.
>>What assumption does atheism make? None.
>Atheism makes the assumption there is no God (read creator).
>Creationism makes the assumption there is a creator.
No. You are using the word "assumption" incorrectly.
In the scientific sense, I am using both the hypothesis that the creator exists and that the hypothesis creator does not exist to interpret the data of the world, comparing the results, and choosing the one as being more logical and likely. I assume nothing, though, being an inherently imperfect being, I recognize I must make some educated guesses to interpret the data before me -- but that is necessary for employing either hypothesis in the real world.
In a subtle sense, one could say that any hypothesis is a "working assumption" or a "tentative assumption". But, no, it is not the same as a just plain "assumption" as found in any dictionary.
It may be true that some people cut this short this process by making assumptions from the get go. But that is not intrinsic to atheism. Arguably, it is not even intrinsic to theism.
>Atheism makes the assumption there is no God (read creator).
>Creationism makes the assumption there is a creator.
No. You are using the word "assumption" incorrectly.
In the scientific sense, I am using both the hypothesis that the creator exists and that the hypothesis creator does not exist to interpret the data of the world, comparing the results, and choosing the one as being more logical and likely. I assume nothing, though, being an inherently imperfect being, I recognize I must make some educated guesses to interpret the data before me -- but that is necessary for employing either hypothesis in the real world.
In a subtle sense, one could say that any hypothesis is a "working assumption" or a "tentative assumption". But, no, it is not the same as a just plain "assumption" as found in any dictionary.
It may be true that some people cut this short this process by making assumptions from the get go. But that is not intrinsic to atheism. Arguably, it is not even intrinsic to theism.
Atheism makes the assumption there is no God (read creator).
No, atheism makes no initial assumptions, and through reason and experimentation comes to the conclusion there is most likely (to a high degree of certainty) no God, at least not as defined by most religions.
Now, your final two sentences...
Both make assumptions. Both have the possibility of being incorrect.
...do not imply the third from last:
There is no difference between the two.
There are many other sorts of differences beyond assumptions and possible incorrectness. From a rational perspective, the evidence supporting one is much more rigorous (i.e. evidence has a higher prior probability and more supporting data to raise posterior probability).
You could assume that if I turn the key in my car's ignition it will start. I could assume that it won't. Both have the possibility of being incorrect. However, one of us has actually tested this, so one of us has better information.
No, atheism makes no initial assumptions, and through reason and experimentation comes to the conclusion there is most likely (to a high degree of certainty) no God, at least not as defined by most religions.
Now, your final two sentences...
Both make assumptions. Both have the possibility of being incorrect.
...do not imply the third from last:
There is no difference between the two.
There are many other sorts of differences beyond assumptions and possible incorrectness. From a rational perspective, the evidence supporting one is much more rigorous (i.e. evidence has a higher prior probability and more supporting data to raise posterior probability).
You could assume that if I turn the key in my car's ignition it will start. I could assume that it won't. Both have the possibility of being incorrect. However, one of us has actually tested this, so one of us has better information.
The burden of proof always lies on the person making the claim. The null hypothesis would be that god (or the tooth fairy) doesn't exist until we have sufficient evidence to prove it does exist.
As for macro-evolution, there is a mountain of evidence including the genetic similarity, the geographic distribution of animals, the fossil record, etc. "The Greatest Show on Earth" would be a good read as it details many of the proofs of evolution and dismantles the Creationist's pseudo-science.
As for macro-evolution, there is a mountain of evidence including the genetic similarity, the geographic distribution of animals, the fossil record, etc. "The Greatest Show on Earth" would be a good read as it details many of the proofs of evolution and dismantles the Creationist's pseudo-science.
> As for macro-evolution, there is a mountain of evidence including the genetic similarity, the geographic distribution of animals, the fossil record, etc.
genetic similarity: When (if) you code, do you invent a new language for every project you do, or do you use the same toolset for several - if not all - of the things you do? Genetic similarity, as the use of a common genetic code for all known life, can be an argument for a creator. It simply depends on what assumptions you make - and this isn't rationalization any more than the mainstream interpretation is, it simply depends on what lens you use.
geographic distribution: Most of that is just adaptation, with which I have no problem at all. (assuming I understand your argument correctly)
fossil record: There are more "missing links" than there is a chain. We don't even have a nearly complete representation for the evolution that led to a few species known today, and there's even less evidence for the development of the larger features...
genetic similarity: When (if) you code, do you invent a new language for every project you do, or do you use the same toolset for several - if not all - of the things you do? Genetic similarity, as the use of a common genetic code for all known life, can be an argument for a creator. It simply depends on what assumptions you make - and this isn't rationalization any more than the mainstream interpretation is, it simply depends on what lens you use.
geographic distribution: Most of that is just adaptation, with which I have no problem at all. (assuming I understand your argument correctly)
fossil record: There are more "missing links" than there is a chain. We don't even have a nearly complete representation for the evolution that led to a few species known today, and there's even less evidence for the development of the larger features...
Genetic similarity is more precise than a generic toolset. We can tell relationships based on how similar their genes are (assuming you don't deny paternity tests). Genetic evaluation tells us that dogs are 100% descendant from wolves, not wolves and coyotes like previously thought. Genes also tell us that we are distant cousins to chimps. Genes are passed on through descendants and you can trace genes back through their family tree.
Animals on islands are completely unique. That's because they've been cut off from the mainland for millions of years and evolved completely differently. 100% of the mammals native to Australia are marsupials (excluding bats which can fly), and 100% of all marsupials are native to Australia, evolution took a different branch there. Galapagos and Madagascar also have animals that are very different, but they are most similar to the animals closest the island, and those animals are most similar to the animals geographically close to them.
Yes, the fossil record is incomplete (as we should expect), but it completely supports evolution. If you want to disprove evolution, find a single mammal fossil below the Devonean layer. Find a single human fossil that is 10 million+ years old. Why do we see the progression in the fossil record at all? Why are there no vertebrates beyond a certain layer?
Macro-evolution is what happens when micro-evolution has millions of years. They aren't as distinctly different as you seem to think.
Animals on islands are completely unique. That's because they've been cut off from the mainland for millions of years and evolved completely differently. 100% of the mammals native to Australia are marsupials (excluding bats which can fly), and 100% of all marsupials are native to Australia, evolution took a different branch there. Galapagos and Madagascar also have animals that are very different, but they are most similar to the animals closest the island, and those animals are most similar to the animals geographically close to them.
Yes, the fossil record is incomplete (as we should expect), but it completely supports evolution. If you want to disprove evolution, find a single mammal fossil below the Devonean layer. Find a single human fossil that is 10 million+ years old. Why do we see the progression in the fossil record at all? Why are there no vertebrates beyond a certain layer?
Macro-evolution is what happens when micro-evolution has millions of years. They aren't as distinctly different as you seem to think.
Toolset and category of thing you make. Of course an F1 and a 4x4 are more similar than an F1 and a jet.
Or, because they were cut of from the mainland long ago and didn't spread. No need to invoke evolution here.
Because the world wasn't created at once, but in 6 days. Again, this doesn't disprove anything.
Macro-evolution is nothing but a hypothesis, without any (decisive/exclusive) evidence.
I hope I don't sound sheepish, I'm just short on time... I hope you can address my answers again :)
Or, because they were cut of from the mainland long ago and didn't spread. No need to invoke evolution here.
Because the world wasn't created at once, but in 6 days. Again, this doesn't disprove anything.
Macro-evolution is nothing but a hypothesis, without any (decisive/exclusive) evidence.
I hope I don't sound sheepish, I'm just short on time... I hope you can address my answers again :)
You can read more in-depth evidence in the book, "The Greatest Show on Earth. Evolution is not a hypothesis, it is a fact. It's not even debated among biologists. If you have some evidence against it (or for creation), submit it to a peer-reviewed journal. If you can throw evolution into question, you'll win a nobel prize for sure.
In the case of the tooth fairy you ask your parents and they confirm that they paid you money for your teeth in some sort of [weird] ritual. Then the onus is on those who consider the parents to be lying to establish that.
I don't think you can honestly say that is akin to the questions of the existence of a personal God or of a controlling mind or of [merely] a creative deity.
I don't think you can honestly say that is akin to the questions of the existence of a personal God or of a controlling mind or of [merely] a creative deity.
There is equal evidence for both god and the tooth fairy. Just because your parents paid for your tooth, doesn't mean there isn't a tooth fairy out there. A parent's word alone is pretty weak evidence compared to the overwhelming evidence against a young earth and creationism.
Here, I usually ask people not to conflate the existence of a God with creationism. (Perhaps that is a particular U.S. thing?) Ditto with a literal interpretation of the Bible.
I was raised and schooled in a religious environment, and no-one believed in creationism. Heck, some of the Jesuit priests were paleontologists. And to give them their credit, irrespective of my beliefs now, the J's were awesome teachers.
I was raised and schooled in a religious environment, and no-one believed in creationism. Heck, some of the Jesuit priests were paleontologists. And to give them their credit, irrespective of my beliefs now, the J's were awesome teachers.
For me there isn't. I've had physical experiences of God; the tooth fairy on the other hand is just a thing people tell their kids to make losing teeth more, er, palatable.
God explains creation. There are no competing hypotheses with support (that I can recall just now anyway). I don't mean, big-bang/big-crunch/branes or the like but prime-mover explanations. One might consider perpetual/infinite explanations but they don't avoid the necessary question of how such universes were made. [Subjectively I have as much evidence as I have that the world is real.]
Parents actions explains the tooth fairy, it's considered to be true [appeal to authority] except in a cohort that are known to have been lied to, is agreed on globally [appeal to majority] with a possible infinitesimal opposition. [The science bit:] There are no records of instances that contradict the Parent/Guardian theory and no support has been presented for alternate hypotheses.
God explains creation. There are no competing hypotheses with support (that I can recall just now anyway). I don't mean, big-bang/big-crunch/branes or the like but prime-mover explanations. One might consider perpetual/infinite explanations but they don't avoid the necessary question of how such universes were made. [Subjectively I have as much evidence as I have that the world is real.]
Parents actions explains the tooth fairy, it's considered to be true [appeal to authority] except in a cohort that are known to have been lied to, is agreed on globally [appeal to majority] with a possible infinitesimal opposition. [The science bit:] There are no records of instances that contradict the Parent/Guardian theory and no support has been presented for alternate hypotheses.
Invoking a god for creation creates more problems than it solves, because now you have to ask, who created god? Since a god must be more complex than his creation, you created a bigger problem to solve.
I believe the current thinking for the "cause" of the big bang is that there was none. That's not unreasonable given how randomness is inherit to quantum mechanics. Also, before there was matter/space, there was also no time for a cause to occur in. While scientists may not fully understand the big bang yet, I'd feel much better betting on a natural, simple explanation than a "god of the gaps" belief, which has been shattered every time science advances.
I believe the current thinking for the "cause" of the big bang is that there was none. That's not unreasonable given how randomness is inherit to quantum mechanics. Also, before there was matter/space, there was also no time for a cause to occur in. While scientists may not fully understand the big bang yet, I'd feel much better betting on a natural, simple explanation than a "god of the gaps" belief, which has been shattered every time science advances.
Any belief about the origins of the observable universe rest on a leap of faith. It doesn't matter if it's God or a quantum fluctuation, there is no way to know about anything prior to the origin of the universe (assuming there is one). So it's not a "god of the gaps" explanation, since there is not actually a gap there.
If you claim that the cause of the observable universe is a natural phenomenon like quantum mechanics, then it necessarily raises the question "where did the laws of quantum mechanics come from?"
The idea that quantum mechanics simply exist for no reason at all is no more plausible than the idea of a creator.
If you claim that the cause of the observable universe is a natural phenomenon like quantum mechanics, then it necessarily raises the question "where did the laws of quantum mechanics come from?"
The idea that quantum mechanics simply exist for no reason at all is no more plausible than the idea of a creator.
Exactly my point, thank you.
If everything is natural,where does nature come from?
Well, where do physics come from? That's a huge problem right there.
As for the creator of God, that problem is easily solved with the bible: God is the one who is. He is the only one who always was, and always will be. He is everything and the cause of everything.
As for the creator of God, that problem is easily solved with the bible: God is the one who is. He is the only one who always was, and always will be. He is everything and the cause of everything.
Well if the bible says so...
>There is equal evidence for both god and the tooth fairy.
Not really. There is no evidence for the actual existence of the (or any) tooth fairy. It could be argued however, that there is evidence of a god or gods specifically because every universe that we know to exist other than our own has creators. The universes created in computer simulations, dreams, imagination etc all have specific creators who are the gods of those universes. Why would our universe be any different from these?
Not really. There is no evidence for the actual existence of the (or any) tooth fairy. It could be argued however, that there is evidence of a god or gods specifically because every universe that we know to exist other than our own has creators. The universes created in computer simulations, dreams, imagination etc all have specific creators who are the gods of those universes. Why would our universe be any different from these?
You have a very curious definition of universe, not to mention you are reasoning by analogy.
Computer simulations are the interactions between transistors in a CPU, carried by electrons and photons. Dreams are impulses in the neurons of our brains that happen to get stored as memories when we awaken. Our imaginations are also physical processes that take place within our brains. All three of these are on a vastly smaller scale than the universe we inhabit.
Do you have some evidence that the actual universe is any of these things?
Computer simulations are the interactions between transistors in a CPU, carried by electrons and photons. Dreams are impulses in the neurons of our brains that happen to get stored as memories when we awaken. Our imaginations are also physical processes that take place within our brains. All three of these are on a vastly smaller scale than the universe we inhabit.
Do you have some evidence that the actual universe is any of these things?
A computer simulation isn't coherent in any way without a program. That most certainly points to a creator. Same as with playdough or clay: no animal or farm is gonna make itself.
But what evidence is there that our universe, the one we live in that appears to be roughly 14 billion years old, is anything like a program or a clay farm?
You are describing the processes in our universe that allow the existence of the created universe. From within that universe, the actors would have no knowledge of these processes or even the existence of our universe unless the creators explicitly provided them with this information. To them, their universe would appear to be everything in existence just as ours does to us. That is why, to me, these universes are analogous to our own and since they are the only universes we know to exist besides our own (even though they exist within our universe), I think it makes sense to consider the possibility that our universe is no different and that our universe may exist within a parent universe and that our universe has a creator in the parent universe just as our child universes have creators in ours.
As far as evidence goes, there is no tangible evidence (and if the theory is correct, it would probably be impossible to get evidence unless the creator allowed it) but if you have 100 bags and in 99 of those bags there is an egg, it can be reasonable to assume that there is an egg in the 100th bag. That isn't really evidence though especially because that 100th bag is different from the other 99 as it contains them. It could be argued however, that this is is a type of evidence. I'm not sure how exactly but I think someone smarter than me could.
Regarding scale, I don't think that that is such an issue for three reasons:
1) If something is contained in something else, it is reasonable that it's container is larger so just as our universe is on a larger scale than our child universes, our parent universe could be on a larger scale to our own.
2) Only the actors and what they observe need to be simulated (I may be the only actor, maybe it's you) the rest can be approximated. Perhaps this is why it is so difficult for scientists to come up with a unified theory. Maybe macro and micro events within our universe are simulated in different ways and the simulator that runs our universe is inconstant when these two simulations need to be merged.
3) Perhaps it takes the equivalent of years in our parent universe to simulate a second in our universe maybe this very moment is the only one that has been simulated and the past is just the initial state.
edit: The bag/egg analogy isn't great but I am sure that you know what I mean.
As far as evidence goes, there is no tangible evidence (and if the theory is correct, it would probably be impossible to get evidence unless the creator allowed it) but if you have 100 bags and in 99 of those bags there is an egg, it can be reasonable to assume that there is an egg in the 100th bag. That isn't really evidence though especially because that 100th bag is different from the other 99 as it contains them. It could be argued however, that this is is a type of evidence. I'm not sure how exactly but I think someone smarter than me could.
Regarding scale, I don't think that that is such an issue for three reasons:
1) If something is contained in something else, it is reasonable that it's container is larger so just as our universe is on a larger scale than our child universes, our parent universe could be on a larger scale to our own.
2) Only the actors and what they observe need to be simulated (I may be the only actor, maybe it's you) the rest can be approximated. Perhaps this is why it is so difficult for scientists to come up with a unified theory. Maybe macro and micro events within our universe are simulated in different ways and the simulator that runs our universe is inconstant when these two simulations need to be merged.
3) Perhaps it takes the equivalent of years in our parent universe to simulate a second in our universe maybe this very moment is the only one that has been simulated and the past is just the initial state.
edit: The bag/egg analogy isn't great but I am sure that you know what I mean.
Almost everything complex we see in the universe has a simple explanation. The galaxies/stars/planets formed because of gravity. Evolution is small gradual steps. Most science equations could fit on 1" of paper. Why would the universe's origins be infinitely complex rather than simple? Why is everything we've ever discovered natural, but the origins are super-natural?
I don't quite understand your reasoning. A creator as an explanation for the origins of the universe is as simple as anything else.
Where do the rules of physics come from? (i.e., where does nature come from)
The entire concept of the phylogenetic tree (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phylogenetic_tree) is based on the idea of speciation. That species evolve into new species is well accepted in evolutionary theory, and well supported.
When we talk about "Creationism" in the US, it generally means the young-Earth variety, with a belief in a 6000 year old universe, with history basically going: creation week, pre-fall, post-fall/pre-flood, Noah's flood, followed by all of post-Flood history (which we live in today).
This leads to all sorts of hypotheses one could make about geology, biology, speciation, etc.
This leads to all sorts of hypotheses one could make about geology, biology, speciation, etc.
I totally disagree. When I talk about "Creationism" I'm talking about a creation event that occurred (say 6000 years ago).
The implementation details aren't necessarily important.
The first 16 billion years could have been emulated and then placed on the live hardware to run after that.
The initial faith has a lot to do with our final outcomes.
Scientists are rather forced to believe in evolution (or some other form of something from nothing). How else could this wonder have happened?
Creationists start with the belief of something from God. This generally tends them to steer in a direction away from thinking evolution is true. Not necessarily though.
Either way, the point is, the creationists don't necessarily worry about implementation and so the young earth ideology shouldn't be tagged with them. That's my take anyways.
The implementation details aren't necessarily important.
The first 16 billion years could have been emulated and then placed on the live hardware to run after that.
The initial faith has a lot to do with our final outcomes.
Scientists are rather forced to believe in evolution (or some other form of something from nothing). How else could this wonder have happened?
Creationists start with the belief of something from God. This generally tends them to steer in a direction away from thinking evolution is true. Not necessarily though.
Either way, the point is, the creationists don't necessarily worry about implementation and so the young earth ideology shouldn't be tagged with them. That's my take anyways.
Scientists aren't forced to believe in evolution. It's falsifiable, it just isn't being falsified.
Evolution isn't something from nothing in any way, this is a profound misunderstanding.
Your usage of the word "creationism" is at variance with many others' usages.
Evolution isn't something from nothing in any way, this is a profound misunderstanding.
Your usage of the word "creationism" is at variance with many others' usages.
I invite you to read about the abundant evidence for macroevolution
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
and then to report back to us what you find out.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
and then to report back to us what you find out.
This is an interesting problem: should you err on the side of creating new species every time you find a bone fragment or should you assume it is more of the same?
I think I come down on the side of those who create new species until sufficient evidence can be found to merge them. It strikes me as better science — a connection is, to my mind, more significant than a lack of a connection.
I think I come down on the side of those who create new species until sufficient evidence can be found to merge them. It strikes me as better science — a connection is, to my mind, more significant than a lack of a connection.
> This is an interesting problem: should you err on the side of creating new species every time you find a bone fragment or should you assume it is more of the same?
That is an extant fight in taxonomy, and one which has been going on for more than a century and a half: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lumpers_and_splitters
> splitters make very small units – their critics say that if they can tell two animals apart, they place them in different genera … and if they cannot tell them apart, they place them in different species. … Lumpers make large units – their critics say that if a carnivore is neither a dog nor a bear, they call it a cat.
That is an extant fight in taxonomy, and one which has been going on for more than a century and a half: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lumpers_and_splitters
> splitters make very small units – their critics say that if they can tell two animals apart, they place them in different genera … and if they cannot tell them apart, they place them in different species. … Lumpers make large units – their critics say that if a carnivore is neither a dog nor a bear, they call it a cat.
Heck, how to classify even existing living and breathing specimens is not always clear. Genetic sequencing has resolved some, but not all, such questions.
Fundamentally, there is no obvious and unambiguous definition of "species". It is a functional definition that is highly useful, but it is not exactly predictive is every case under the sun. There will always be confusion on the margins, because the natural world is sometimes messy that way.
Fundamentally, there is no obvious and unambiguous definition of "species". It is a functional definition that is highly useful, but it is not exactly predictive is every case under the sun. There will always be confusion on the margins, because the natural world is sometimes messy that way.
I've seen it suggested, by paleontologists, that some people just like to put their stamp on things. It makes for a bigger story when you discover a new species, vs. just finding more bones that look more-or-less like other things in the same geo/temporal region.
The problem is as always money. Finding new species gives better chances to start new excavation at some forgotten place.
well, whatever moves the science forward i'm all for it.
Taxonomy is the art of thinking!
Scientists, if carbon dating is limited to ~50,000 years or so, how do archeologists date things into the millions of years with accuracy?
Carbon dating is just a subset of radiometric dating. You can leverage the decay rates of (almost) any element to estimate the age of an object.
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiometric_dating#Fundamentals...)
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiometric_dating#Fundamentals...)
Also stratification and artefact context.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/10/131017-skull...
is quite helpful and has interesting graphics.
The BBC story
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-24564375
looks to be more helpful than the story kindly submitted here, the CNN story
http://edition.cnn.com/2013/10/17/world/europe/ancient-skull...
quotes other experts who don't reach the same conclusions, while the Wall Street Journal story
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB1000142405270230438410...
largely quotes scholars who agree with the new announcement from Georgia.
The Bloomberg story
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/sns-wp-blm-news-bc-skulls...
quotes an expert who sums up what the real issue is here:
"The finding likely won't change expert's views on species diversity, where two groups are heavily entrenched said William Harcourt-Smith, an assistant professor at Lehman College and a research associate in the American Museum of Natural History's Division of Paleontology.
"Some, nicknamed 'splitters,' see the tree of evolution as having many species. Others, called 'lumpers,' see wider species categories and fewer limbs on the tree.
"'To be honest it just adds some important fuel to the debate,' Harcourt-Smith wrote in an e-mail. 'The lumpers, of course, will love this new paper, but I can see splitters saying that there is too much variation in both the African early Homo and Dmanisi sample for them to all be Homo erectus.'"