1. Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Featured Evolution My ToE

Discussion in 'Evolution Vs. Creationism' started by nPeace, Oct 12, 2019.

  1. YoursTrue

    YoursTrue We know gravity by happenstance. (Newton)

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2017
    Messages:
    6,005
    Ratings:
    +1,000
    Religion:
    Christian
    Nevertheless, if (key word 'if') I understand the statements correctly, the researchers concluded it did take a longer time than scientists used to think. "the researchers suggest their findings may force scientists to rethink theories of human descent from the trees—it would have taken a lot longer than previously believed to adjust to living on the ground if the phalangeal curve took multiple generations to straighten." Do you think they're on a wild chimp chase?
    https://phys.org/news/2020-05-chimp-human-child-phalangeal-genetic.html
     
  2. Polymath257

    Polymath257 Think & Care
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2017
    Messages:
    19,492
    Ratings:
    +22,814
    Religion:
    Non-theist
    I am betting (no current evidence, mind you) that this will not take nearly as much time as they seem to think.
     
  3. YoursTrue

    YoursTrue We know gravity by happenstance. (Newton)

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2017
    Messages:
    6,005
    Ratings:
    +1,000
    Religion:
    Christian
    Here I am making a little chuckle.
     
  4. YoursTrue

    YoursTrue We know gravity by happenstance. (Newton)

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2017
    Messages:
    6,005
    Ratings:
    +1,000
    Religion:
    Christian
    Most 'virgin' women have a breaking of the hymen upon having sexual intercourse the first time. Despite rumors to the contrary, Mary did not have sexual intercourse with a man until after she gave birth to Jesus. "Scientific studies" as far as statistics regarding the hymen were not done back then. Plus humans are not normally seen evolution-style rising to heaven. Either one believes the Bible in its essence or one does not. Either one believes mankind came about from ape-like swinging ancestral beings imagining whatever the Last Unknown Common Ancestor was or he does not.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  5. YoursTrue

    YoursTrue We know gravity by happenstance. (Newton)

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2017
    Messages:
    6,005
    Ratings:
    +1,000
    Religion:
    Christian
    And so do the Messianic prophecies possibly refer to someone other than Jesus, in the OT verses. But the person of Jesus is applied to all the Messianic prophecies by true Christians, stated in the Old Testament and new. The Prince of Peace is yet to exercise his glorious powers in full. It's coming.
     
  6. YoursTrue

    YoursTrue We know gravity by happenstance. (Newton)

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2017
    Messages:
    6,005
    Ratings:
    +1,000
    Religion:
    Christian
    I believe molecules (sediment and so forth) have been leeched into bones and artifacts. I also don't know what parts of these objects are tested. And much, if not all of it, is later conjecture based on flawed testing. That's what I think.
     
  7. Polymath257

    Polymath257 Think & Care
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2017
    Messages:
    19,492
    Ratings:
    +22,814
    Religion:
    Non-theist

    Welcome to your beliefs. I don't share them and see no reason to think they are correct.
     
  8. Polymath257

    Polymath257 Think & Care
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2017
    Messages:
    19,492
    Ratings:
    +22,814
    Religion:
    Non-theist
    maybe you should learn how the tests are actually done and the background material to understand the specifics before criticizing?
     
    • Winner Winner x 2
  9. SkepticThinker

    SkepticThinker Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2013
    Messages:
    10,878
    Ratings:
    +5,231
    You don't really think scientists are unaware of erosion and contamination, do you? You really don't think they account for it in their data?
    Come on.
     
    • Like Like x 3
  10. YoursTrue

    YoursTrue We know gravity by happenstance. (Newton)

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2017
    Messages:
    6,005
    Ratings:
    +1,000
    Religion:
    Christian
    OK, well anyway, this is a board about evolution. Perhaps we can discuss these points on another board, and I don't have privileges to start a discussion.
     
  11. YoursTrue

    YoursTrue We know gravity by happenstance. (Newton)

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2017
    Messages:
    6,005
    Ratings:
    +1,000
    Religion:
    Christian
    I am pretty sure scientists are aware of erosion and contamination, but I don't know how they account for it in their data. By that I mean what parts of the bones and remnants of objects do they test with their dating process. And how they make a determination. If and when I have the time I'll research it.
     
  12. YoursTrue

    YoursTrue We know gravity by happenstance. (Newton)

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2017
    Messages:
    6,005
    Ratings:
    +1,000
    Religion:
    Christian
    Who's criticizing? I'm asking a question. Since you believe the dating process is accurate, would you like to start explaining it to me? Or give me a website to check that you're willing to discuss questions with me that I might have?
     
  13. TagliatelliMonster

    TagliatelliMonster Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2019
    Messages:
    9,558
    Ratings:
    +7,406
    Religion:
    Atheist
    Or maybe you are grasping at whatever straw you can.

    Paleontologists can tell when events took place that mixed up and / or contaminated sites.
    It's what they are trained for.
     
    • Like Like x 3
  14. TagliatelliMonster

    TagliatelliMonster Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2019
    Messages:
    9,558
    Ratings:
    +7,406
    Religion:
    Atheist
    Jesus, if he existed, was a human who was born from a non-virgin human mother who got pregnant after having sex with a human father.

    Beause that's how reproduction works.
    There is zero reason to invoke "magic" of virgin births without sex, just because some iron age tale says so.


    OBVIOUSLY christians can accept evolution and christianity at the same time, as proven every day by a billion catholics and thousands of christian evolutionary biologists.

    Also, you seem to be claiming that accepting evolution means that therefor you can't believe in the magic of a virgin birth or resurection. Clearly that isn't correct either. As plenty of virgin-birth and resurection magic believing christians who also accept evolution also prove every day.

    There is zero reason to accept that magic occured like the bible claims.
    Many, many christians don't insist on such literal readings like you do.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
  15. shunyadragon

    shunyadragon shunyadragon
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2017
    Messages:
    16,805
    Ratings:
    +8,015
    Religion:
    Baha'i Faith
    First, you are not correctly citing your source. ***MOD EDIT*** The source said a 'bit longer' and not a 'lot longer.' Scientists constantly have to rethink the theories and hypothesis in ALL sciences as new discoveries and research becomes known, but the basic timeline of evolution remains basically the same.

    Second, actually the course of the time line of human evolution is being confirmed more accurately over time, ay the confirmation of paleontological evidence with genetic evidence.
     
    #5455 shunyadragon, May 18, 2020
    Last edited by a moderator: May 19, 2020
    • Like Like x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
  16. YoursTrue

    YoursTrue We know gravity by happenstance. (Newton)

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2017
    Messages:
    6,005
    Ratings:
    +1,000
    Religion:
    Christian
    Here is my post, repeated. Did I say the source said "a bit longer"? Just wondering, perhaps I did but can't find it. Please show it to me.
    "Nevertheless, if (key word 'if') I understand the statements correctly, the researchers concluded it did take a longer time than scientists used to think. "the researchers suggest their findings may force scientists to rethink theories of human descent from the trees—it would have taken a lot longer than previously believed to adjust to living on the ground if the phalangeal curve took multiple generations to straighten." Do you think they're on a wild chimp chase?
    https://phys.org/news/2020-05-chimp-human-child-phalangeal-genetic.html"
    I believe I re-quoted it to say A LOT LONGER...not a Bit Longer. I double checked the article itself. Did you check the article? Because it said, "The researchers suggest their findings may force scientists to rethink theories of human descent from the trees--it would have taken a lot longer than previously believed to adjust to living on the ground if the phalangeal curve took multiple generations to straighten."
    Where did the source say a BIT LONGER??
    Where did I say a BIT LONGER??
     
    #5456 YoursTrue, May 18, 2020
    Last edited by a moderator: May 19, 2020
  17. shunyadragon

    shunyadragon shunyadragon
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2017
    Messages:
    16,805
    Ratings:
    +8,015
    Religion:
    Baha'i Faith
    You apparently did not read the article
    For clarification I went back to the original article that this article amd from, and time was not an issue in this article, not a bit nor a lot longer, and time was not a factor. When we are talking time we have millions of years. It described the various ancestors and the progressive changes over millions of years to the upright posture.

    https://phys.org/news/2018-04-anatomy-easier-muscles-climbing-early.html

    Study shows changes in anatomy would have made walking easier without reducing muscles for climbing in early hominins
    by Bob Yirka , Phys.org

    PNAS" style="box-sizing: border-box;">
    [​IMG]
    Evolved changes in pelvis shape allow the hamstrings muscles (red) to hyper-extend the hip in humans, but not in apes. Credit: PNAS

    An international team of researchers has found evidence that suggests evolutionary changes in anatomy would have made walking more economical without reducing utility of muscles for climbing in early hominins. In their paper published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, the group describes studying bones and fossils from human ancestors and how they fit together to determine their walking and climbing abilities.

    How and when early human ancestors first began walking upright remains a topic of debate among scientists, and research continues to find the answer. In this new effort, the researchers took another look at conventional ideas suggesting that the first hominins to walk upright likely did so extremely awkwardly, as they retained physical features that would allow them to escape enemies by climbing trees. The researchers suggested that if that were the case, those early hominins would not have survived.

    To prove their theory, they began by taking a closer look at human gait and comparing the data with how apes and monkeys walk. They noted that the angle at which the leg and hip bones meet are different between the species, which means that walking upright for apes and monkeys places a lot of stress on thigh muscles, hamstrings and the knees. A shorter ischium (curved bone at the base of the pelvis) in humans allows for full extension without undue pressure on other leg parts. The net result, the researchers noted, is an ability to walk not only upright, but more efficiently.

    The researchers then looked at the anatomy of ancient hominins—going all the way back to Lucy. All of the members of Australopithecus, they noted, had a full range of motion, allowing them to walk upright—even as they conserved traits that allowed them to climb much better than today's humans. The researchers also found that an older hominin known as Ardi, who lived approximately 4.4 million years ago, had pelvic anatomy that allowed for walking upright almost as easily as modern humans, yet still had a long ischium. This, the team claims, shows that early hominins were able to walk upright and climb trees in relatively easy fashion—not clumsily, as others have suggested.


    Explore further

    Why aren't humans 'knuckle-walkers?'
    More information: Elaine E. Kozma et al. Hip extensor mechanics and the evolution of walking and climbing capabilities in humans, apes, and fossil hominins, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (2018). DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1715120115
     
    • Informative Informative x 2
  18. YoursTrue

    YoursTrue We know gravity by happenstance. (Newton)

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2017
    Messages:
    6,005
    Ratings:
    +1,000
    Religion:
    Christian
    Well, I quoted from the article. Which said -- (and readers can check it out --) " Because it said, "The researchers suggest their findings may force scientists to rethink theories of human descent from the trees--it would have taken a lot longer than previously believed to adjust to living on the ground if the phalangeal curve took multiple generations to straighten."
    Meantime, the pictures in the diagram you copied with the spines indicates it didn't happen "overnight," as the saying goes. In fact, didn't happen. What did they do? Intermingle? Go to chiropractors?
    Go back to the article I quoted from -- A LOT LONGER...:) (Oh, yes, as the hypothetical premise goes -- things can change...) "A LOT LONGER..." "force scientists to rethink..."
     
    #5458 YoursTrue, May 18, 2020
    Last edited: May 18, 2020
  19. shunyadragon

    shunyadragon shunyadragon
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2017
    Messages:
    16,805
    Ratings:
    +8,015
    Religion:
    Baha'i Faith
    First you cited a layman's article and I cited the scientific paper behind it that described simply that our ancestors were able to walk upright much earlier than previously thought. There for more time involved that humans walked upright.No problem here it is best to cite the illustred scientific article than the layman's article that rewrites it.

    Nothing in evolution happens over night it takes millions of years. Again, you are citing a layan's article. I cited the original scientific article, None of the articles, including the layman's article you cited question evolution.

    As I described before scientists are ALWAYS rethinking and changing the theories base don new evidence. Other than new information. The scientific reference described how scientists ;must change there thinking, your layman's article does not.

    By the way we did not descend from Chimpanzees. We have common ancestor millions of years ago, and no problem with time.
     
    #5459 shunyadragon, May 18, 2020
    Last edited: May 19, 2020
    • Like Like x 2
  20. YoursTrue

    YoursTrue We know gravity by happenstance. (Newton)

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2017
    Messages:
    6,005
    Ratings:
    +1,000
    Religion:
    Christian
    As noted in prior posts, the Last Common Ancestor as yet has not been found, has it?
    Further, I'll repeat this for clarity, I quoted from the article. I did not make the following up. I did not author the following, "The researchers suggest their findings may force scientists to rethink theories of human descent from the trees--it would have taken a lot longer than previously believed to adjust to living on the ground if the phalangeal curve took multiple generations to straighten." (from physics.org)
    Now I repeat what they (not I) said, so you may take note, that the findings "may force scientists to rethink theories of human descent from the trees"...Once again, physics.org article had that, not me. :) "It would have taken a lot longer than previously believed..."
    Imagine -- the authors said these findings "may force scientists" to rethink theories. May Force Scientists. In a way, may the force be with you. :)
     
Loading...