| xjwsforChrist https://www.xjwsforchrist.com/ |
|
| Thought you all might find this article interesting... https://www.xjwsforchrist.com/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=1043 |
Page 1 of 2 |
| Author: | tec [ Tue Oct 22, 2013 12:34 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Thought you all might find this article interesting... |
Seems that a new discovery has thrown some previous conclusions about human evolution into question. The spectacular fossilised skull of an ancient human ancestor that died nearly two million years ago has forced scientists to rethink the story of early human evolution. Anthropologists unearthed the skull at a site in Dmanisi, a small town in southern Georgia, where other remains of human ancestors, simple stone tools and long-extinct animals have been dated to 1.8m years old. Experts believe the skull is one of the most important fossil finds to date, but it has proved as controversial as it is stunning. Analysis of the skull and other remains at Dmanisi suggests that scientists have been too ready to name separate species of human ancestors in Africa. Many of those species may now have to be wiped from the textbooks. The latest fossil is the only intact skull ever found of a human ancestor that lived in the early Pleistocene, when our predecessors first walked out of Africa. The skull adds to a haul of bones recovered from Dmanisi that belong to five individuals, most likely an elderly male, two other adult males, a young female and a juvenile of unknown sex. The site was a busy watering hole that human ancestors shared with giant extinct cheetahs, sabre-toothed cats and other beasts. The remains of the individuals were found in collapsed dens where carnivores had apparently dragged the carcasses to eat. They are thought to have died within a few hundred years of one another. "Nobody has ever seen such a well-preserved skull from this period," said Christoph Zollikofer, a professor at Zurich University's Anthropological Institute, who worked on the remains. "This is the first complete skull of an adult early Homo. They simply did not exist before," he said. Homo is the genus of great apes that emerged around 2.4m years ago and includes modern humans. Other researchers said the fossil was an extraordinary discovery. "The significance is difficult to overstate. It is stunning in its completeness. This is going to be one of the real classics in paleoanthropology," said Tim White, an expert on human evolution at the University of California, Berkeley. But while the skull itself is spectacular, it is the implications of the discovery that have caused scientists in the field to draw breath. Over decades excavating sites in Africa, researchers have named half a dozen different species of early human ancestor, but most, if not all, are now on shaky ground. The remains at Dmanisi are thought to be early forms of Homo erectus, the first of our relatives to have body proportions like a modern human. The species arose in Africa around 1.8m years ago and may have been the first to harness fire and cook food. The Dmanisi fossils show that H erectus migrated as far as Asia soon after arising in Africa. The latest skull discovered in Dmanisi belonged to an adult male and was the largest of the haul. It had a long face and big, chunky teeth. But at just under 550 cubic centimetres, it also had the smallest braincase of all the individuals found at the site. The dimensions were so strange that one scientist at the site joked that they should leave it in the ground. The odd dimensions of the fossil prompted the team to look at normal skull variation, both in modern humans and chimps, to see how they compared. They found that while the Dmanisi skulls looked different to one another, the variations were no greater than those seen among modern people and among chimps. The scientists went on to compare the Dmanisi remains with those of supposedly different species of human ancestor that lived in Africa at the time. They concluded that the variation among them was no greater than that seen at Dmanisi. Rather than being separate species, the human ancestors found in Africa from the same period may simply be normal variants of H erectus. "Everything that lived at the time of the Dmanisi was probably just Homo erectus," said Prof Zollikofer. "We are not saying that palaeoanthropologists did things wrong in Africa, but they didn't have the reference we have. Part of the community will like it, but for another part it will be shocking news." at the Georgian National Museum, who leads the Dmanisi excavations, said: "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." If the scientists are right, it would trim the base of the human evolutionary tree and spell the end for names such as H rudolfensis, H gautengensis, H ergaster and possibly H habilis. The fossil is described in the latest issue of Science. "Some palaeontologists see minor differences in fossils and give them labels, and that has resulted in the family tree accumulating a lot of branches," said White. "The Dmanisi fossils give us a new yardstick, and when you apply that yardstick to the African fossils, a lot of that extra wood in the tree is dead wood. It's arm-waving." "I think they will be proved right that some of those early African fossils can reasonably join a variable Homo erectus species," said Chris Stringer, head of human origins at the Natural History Museum in London. "But Africa is a huge continent with a deep record of the earliest stages of human evolution, and there certainly seems to have been species-level diversity there prior to two million years ago. So I still doubt that all of the 'early Homo' fossils can reasonably be lumped into an evolving Homo erectus lineage. We need similarly complete African fossils from two to 2.5m years ago to test that idea properly." The analysis by Lordkipanidze also casts doubt on claims that a creature called Australopithecus sediba that lived in what is now South Africa around 1.9m years ago was a direct ancestor of modern humans. The species was discovered by Lee Berger at the University of Witwatersrand. He argued that it was premature to dismiss his finding and criticised the authors for failing to compare their fossils with the remains of A sediba. "This is a fantastic and important discovery, but I don't think the evidence they have lives up to this broad claim they are making. They say this falsifies that Australopithecus sediba is the ancestor of Homo. The very simple response is, no it doesn't." "What all this screams out for is more and better specimens. We need skeletons, more complete material, so we can look at them from head to toe," he added. "Any time a scientist says 'we've got this figured out' they are probably wrong. It's not the end of the story." • This article was amended on 18 October 2013. An earlier version incorrectly located Georgia in central Asia. http://www.theguardian.com/science/2013 ... CMP=twt_gu I'm gonna post my own comments in a bit. Peace, tammy |
|
| Author: | AGuest [ Tue Oct 22, 2013 1:29 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Thought you all might find this article interesting... |
"Any time a scientist says 'we've got this figured out' they are probably wrong. It's not the end of the story." This brings two thoughts to my mind, dear tec (peace... and thanks for the post!): 1. Scientists say they've got something figured out all the time. Does that mean they're wrong most of the time? 2. If so, then why get angry when others say science is wrong most of the time (not that they are or I'm saying that, just why get mad when someone does)? 3. If it ISN'T the "end of the story," why publish it as if it IS? Isn't that misleading, which is something science claims to be "against" (i.e., based on "facts")? 4. If they're probably wrong when they say they've got something "figured out"... doesn't that mean they are, potentially, wrong about (human) evolution? Doesn't this, the intimation that they're wrong about this particular part," indicate, if this is true, that they could be wrong about more "parts"? Not trying to discredit science. Just asking the "obvious" questions. Well, at least, the questions that come to MY mind about these things. Thanks, again, luv! Some very interesting articles from that site! Peace! YSSFS of Christ, Shellamar |
|
| Author: | ANOMOS [ Tue Oct 22, 2013 8:29 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Thought you all might find this article interesting... |
3: Because this is science. To the acquiring of knowledge there is no end. You present your findings and conclusions and you continue your studies and research. Infallible is only the pope and the 8 popes of Crooklyn. |
|
| Author: | AGuest [ Tue Oct 22, 2013 9:17 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Thought you all might find this article interesting... |
TOTALLY get the "no end to acquiring knowledge" thing, dear ANOMOS (peace to you!). However, if one says... for whatever reason... that, say, these are/were mutations... they are considered "wrong" because "science"... "disagrees." Well, the current known "science." For example, many take it as truth because "science" says "no, they're not mutations of the same species but entirely different species... because the 'facts' say so. But those "facts" are limited to what "science" STATES, right? And so, we find out that the "facts" aren't REALLY the "facts"... but merely scientific "conclusions"... based on "science's" (sometimes very) limited understanding... and so are just that... conclusions... and NOT ACTUALLY facts... yes? Which means, to ME... that facts... are NOT necessarily the TRUTH! What, though, OF the TRUTH? What if the truth is that these ARE mutations... and were so to begin with? Does scientific "conclusion" trump truth? Because, that's really all that concerns ME: truth. And the presumption that scientific conclusion is touted... and accepted... as FACT... even when it may not REALLY be TRUTH. Smacks of that whole "new light" BS pushes by the WTBTS ("THIS is the TRUTH; no, wait, we were tacking... THIS is now the truth!"). Sounds like more propaganda to ME. S'all I'm sayin'. Nohmsayin'? Peace! Your servant and a slave of Christ, Shellamar |
|
| Author: | PSacramento [ Wed Oct 23, 2013 7:43 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Thought you all might find this article interesting... |
Science is self correcting and that is one of the great things about science. What this discovery will do is cause them to, possibly, correct some branches. In science, "things are fact" until proven NOT to be. It has always been a "best guess based on the evidence". This discovery does not effect evolution though. |
|
| Author: | tec [ Wed Oct 23, 2013 9:51 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Thought you all might find this article interesting... |
Quote: 4. If they're probably wrong when they say they've got something "figured out"... doesn't that mean they are, potentially, wrong about (human) evolution? Doesn't this, the intimation that they're wrong about this particular part," indicate, if this is true, that they could be wrong about more "parts"? Yes. And that is what stood out to me from the article. If this has been overlooked, that all these various species they formerly named, are actually just the one species, all due to a single find... then what are the possible implications about the rest of their 'conclusions' and 'facts' regarding human evolution. It is not that evolution/adaptation is false. Not at all. But the conclusions that have been drawn are subject to change, and I thought that this article might give some a glimpse into how much they might change. The discovery affects the details of human evolution... and if the details are affected... and then what about the conclusions that have been drawn based on those details? I don't think scientists should use the word, 'fact', if things are not fact.... (facts are not supposed to change)... because it IS misleading. It does leave some people who do not take those 'facts' as gospel, but instead with a grain of salt, open to ridicule by those who claim to BE scientifically minded, but who actually treat those 'facts' as gospel. Irony, lol. Peace, tammy |
|
| Author: | AGuest [ Wed Oct 23, 2013 11:21 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Thought you all might find this article interesting... |
Exactly my points, dear tec (peace, luv)!! Your comments lead me to ask, though, dear P (peace to you, too, brug!): isn't that what the WTBTS does, "self-correct"? And things that previously touted as truth (aka "fact")? And isn't it hypocritical to indict THEM... and those who follow them... but not others who do the EXACT same thing... and those who follow THEM... simply because we call the latter "science"? I realize that, perhaps due to some success with facts, perhaps even a great deal, and the resulting propaganda, some feel the latter is... mmmmmm... immune... from challenge... except perhaps by OTHER "facts" that disprove the former. In the same vein, though, since they can't DISPROVE God... doesn't that make atheism a little hypocritical? Agnosticism seems more HONEST, which is why I have respect for such folks - not just their honesty but their lack of HYPOCRISY in this regard. Please note my questions/comments aren't aimed at you, luv, but are for those who use your argument to tout science as being SUPERIOR... to faith in Christ. Superior to religion? No argument from me. Superior to the MOST HOLY One of Israel, JAH of Armies, and HIS Truth, the HOLY One of Israel and Holy Spirit, JAHESHUA, the Chosen One of JAH (MischaJah), however... no. Peace! YSSFS of Christ, Shellamar |
|
| Author: | PSacramento [ Wed Oct 23, 2013 2:39 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Thought you all might find this article interesting... |
Science doesn't claim divine inspiration, it is about commenting on observations in nature through human understanding. When science says FACT it means, to the best of our understanding this is the best explanation, till proven otherwise. That SOME people make science their "religion" is not the fault of science. |
|
| Author: | PSacramento [ Wed Oct 23, 2013 2:41 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Thought you all might find this article interesting... |
Evolution is a proven fact. IF by evolution you mean "changes over time that are selected to be beneficial". It has been proven over and over. What some have issues with is "macro" evolution and the notion that Man evolved from a common ancestor of primates. |
|
| Author: | AGuest [ Wed Oct 23, 2013 3:21 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Thought you all might find this article interesting... |
I hear what you're saying, dear P (pesve to you!)... and I don't have a problem with science at all. I firmly believe that God and science are NOT in opposition, but that science simply lacks the knowledge and tools to PROVE God... because "what" He is is not OF this world but another and it takes something, or rather SOMEONE... who is from HIS world... AND this one... to explain/reveal Him TO us. That someone is His Son. But I marvel, again, at the HYPOCRISY of those who put their faith IN science, which they cannot deny changes, while taking issue with those who put THEIR faith in religion (which also changes as it "corrects" to align with new information/understanding). I can't see the DIFFERENCE. In addition, those who DO put their faith in science often conduct themselves in the SAME way as some who put their faith in religion... when presented with TRUTH and told the SOURCE of that truth is the HOLY One of Israel and Holy Spirit, JAHESHUA, the Chosen One of JAH (MischaJah)... although THAT One's truth does NOT change. Neither can see their own hypocrisy. But that's why I cannot put my FAITH in science anymore than I can put it in religion: the hypocrisy ON Y TOP of the changing "facts." Because there is NO deceit in truth... and the truth is ALWAYS the truth... even if NO ONE believes it... and regardless of whether or not science can PROVE it. I know you know my thinking here, though, so again, this is not directed at you! LOLOL! Peace! YSSFS of Christ, Shellamar |
|
| Author: | tec [ Wed Oct 23, 2013 3:53 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Thought you all might find this article interesting... |
PSacramento wrote: Science doesn't claim divine inspiration, it is about commenting on observations in nature through human understanding. When science says FACT it means, to the best of our understanding this is the best explanation, till proven otherwise. That SOME people make science their "religion" is not the fault of science. Yes, agreed, as to all. Your second comment as well, Paul. Peace to you, tammy |
|
| Author: | ANOMOS [ Wed Oct 23, 2013 7:14 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Thought you all might find this article interesting... |
Science doesn't have anything to do with faith. it is just what we verify with experiments that we accept as 'truth' or correct. Now about evolution: Nobody was present to describe exactly what happened. Neither does the Bible offer any reliable explanation because it is a man made myth. [Note that the Bible actually supports evolution: It doesn't say that God used mud to create the animals. He just gave the command for the sea to be filled with creatures, etc. Actually it is vey demeaning-if you believe in a God creator-to say that he created every kind of creature on earth one by one. Even humans nowadays use robots at factories and use advanced software to design new products-it is all about maths.] So we have to reconstruct the past with the data we have at our hands. As new data gets unearthed the reconstruction will become closer to what really took place. Compare now this with the stupidity of religious faith: The generation of 1914 will not pass away. The 'experimement' failed. Yet the data did not change. The Bible talked about 1 generation. But the monkeys of Crooklyn twisted the data, defying logic!!! (1=2) and threaten to shun whoever does not put faith to their *** theories. How would a scientist work? He would check to see where his theory is wrong: Is 1914 a wrong starting date? Was Jesus referring to the generation of the last days, or to the generation of the Jewish system's last days? |
|
| Author: | AGuest [ Thu Oct 24, 2013 8:14 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Thought you all might find this article interesting... |
Interesting perception, dear ANOMOS (mornin' and peace to you!). My perception is that because one group believes/puts their faith in stupid, blatant lies... and another believes/puts their faith in subtle, well-contrived lies... means... what? Both still believe/put their faith in lies. And BOTH are willing to change their belief... when the lie "changes" (even to yet another lie). Sorta kinda one'a those "pot thinkin' it's doing something different than the kettle when in TRUTH it isn't" dealies, yes? Doesn't matter whether the lie is in your face... or insidious... it's still a LIE. Right? Seems to ME that BOTH groups are willing to say, "Well, okay, OUR [lie] might change... but based on what we know NOW... it's the best [lie] we can come up with. Therefore, right NOW... it's fact/truth." Truth, however, does not change. No matter WHAT we might [think we] know at a given time, IT is always the SAME. Now, OUR KNOWLEDGE... and UNDERSTANDING... as TO truth... what IS true... might change, yes. But that's on us, NOT on the facts/truth. Truth is not what we [think we] KNOW; it is what IS TRUE. And it doesn't change. It CAN'T change, else it was NOT true. Just some thoughts... which I hope help. Help as to what? Maybe help some wake up... and not continue to be lulled into [further] sleep by putting their faith in what APPEARS to be truth... but really isn't. Of course, there are those who won't find a problem with doing so... and these should continue. For those who are TRULY interested in TRUTH, perhaps considering how ANY lie can BE truth would be a good thing to do. Maybe. Depends on what one... truly... wants: to KNOW truth... or not. Knowing "some" truth... and only rejecting "some" lies... most probably won't help one be led into ALL truth, though. Because how will one know which truths to follow... and which to reject? To the contrary, they will most probably have their "truth/lie-ometer"... decalibrated. Should we be concerned that it is? Depends. On where one wants to "go": into ALL truth (at the end of which you find God)... or just some truths (which have no end... and so one simply goes 'round and 'round in circles...). Peace to you! Your servant and a slave of Christ, Shellamar |
|
| Author: | PSacramento [ Thu Oct 24, 2013 9:10 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Thought you all might find this article interesting... |
My view in regards to science, faith and belief: We are all humans and that is where we start from and EVERYTHING we think is a form of belief, you just can't get around it. Scientists believe something and then they go about verifying it to prove it BUT even with 100% proof, what we have because we are humans and don't know everything, is still a form of belief. Faith is something that all humans have, including scientists. How we use that faith my vary, but we all have some faith. |
|
| Author: | AGuest [ Thu Oct 24, 2013 9:47 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Thought you all might find this article interesting... |
Yes, I agree, dear P (mornin' and peace to you!): we all have (some form of) faith, yes! Question is: faith in what/Whom? Because the answer to this question COULD be important. I have just posted some thoughts about that here, for those who might be interested: viewtopic.php?f=22&t=1048 Peace to you! YSSFS of Christ, Shellamar |
|
| Page 1 of 2 | All times are UTC - 6 hours |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group https://www.phpbb.com/ |
|