Remarkably complete’ 3.8-million-year-old cranium of human ancestor discovered in Ethiopia

[David1967]

It's to poke at Craig Cobb read the back story

Gotcha. Just having trouble figuring out how you were creating a race problem among australopithecines.

 

[SkepticThinker]

How do you know that?
The bible says life came out of the sea.

So?

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Actually the dating of modern humans is likely more than 500,000 years. I may cite sources of more recent discoveries.

I didn't know that. Yeah, I'd like to see the sources, pleases.

 

[Jose Fly]

There is no real evidence that humans had ancestors who looked like this.
It is an assumption...based more on imagination, rather than real evidence.

Who does it most resemble? Ape or man? Isn't this imagination running riot?

I don't know what all the fuss is about...?

This Ethiopian "find" is not a "human" skull...it is clearly a small ape. Who says its an ancestor of man? Science does not really know that apes evolved into humans....it is only supposed that they did.....and with very flimsy evidence to back it up. Similarity does not confirm relationship. Who said that the diversity of apes is even a result of evolution?

Much ado about nothing IMO.....

But remember, Deeje's interpretation of this piece of data is in no way at all influenced by her being a Jehovah's Witness! Nope, she fully evaluated this find, considered it objectively with no regard at all to how it meshes with Witness doctrine.

And if you believe that.....

 

[Jose Fly]

The problem is that creationists don't consider this evidence. The only reason I can see for this is that they would require us to have evidence from each and every generation, including film footage of births at each generation. Anything less would be 'unproven speculation'.

*shrug*

I wouldn't even count on that. They'd likely claim the film was a hoax and start ranting about Piltdown man.

Never underestimate just how powerful of an effect the threat of emotional and social ruin can have on a person.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The bible also says that the sun "stood still in the sky" for several days, that the first woman was created from the first man's ribs, that a man survived in a fish's belly for several days, that the world was flooded and a handfull of creatures survived on some physically impossible boat, etc etc etc etc.

And I suspect that the bible saying life came out of the sea is debatable at best.
After all, didn't god supposedly create adam from dirt?

There is no rational reason to care about what the bible says concerning the origins of life, or anything else in the universe for that matter.

I thought that was just for part of an afternoon. At any rate that reminded me of an old canard from my college days. The claim was that NASA was able to detect that in either Earth's orbit or some other such nonsense. That was long before the internet and one could not do a search to see that this never happened.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I wouldn't even count on that. They'd likely claim the film was a hoax and start ranting about Piltdown man.

Never underestimate just how powerful of an effect the threat of emotional and social ruin can have on a person.

That argument drives me nuts. Not because it is a bad argument against evolution. But because if one applied the same standards to Christianity, and Christian frauds are a dime a dozen, then by their own standards Christianity has been refuted.

 

[Jose Fly]

That argument drives me nuts. Not because it is a bad argument against evolution. But because if one applied the same standards to Christianity, and Christian frauds are a dime a dozen, then by their own standards Christianity has been refuted.

Exactly. That's why whenever a creationist brings up Piltdown man, I always ask, "What's your point? Piltdown man was a hoax, therefore.......?"

No creationist has answered, and I think we all know why.

 

[Polymath257]

Sounds familiar.
Not enough evidence.
Not enough evidence.

Do you really see the three situations as being the same?

The difference here is that one is pure conjecture, that cannot be verified - evolution. The other has been verified - accurate historical events; true scientific discoveries... found in the Bible.

Except that is precisely backwards. The theory of evolution has given testable predictions that have been verified by observation. The Bible is, at best, reliable for times after about 900BC and then only as a context for the rest of the story.

So, why believes stories, that are created to support ideas assumed to be correct? Example...
Seeing the Formation of Planets
The Formation of the Solar System in 4K (Ultra HD)

So we are investigating in more detail processes we know are happening all over the universe. What is the problem?

"We don't know how planets formed in the beginning," said Jaumann.

"And in order to understand this, (we must) go to the small bodies, these primitive bodies, primordial in their history in their evolution, in order to understand the first 10 to 100 million years of planetary formation."

A dust mystery, and a future threat?
MASCOT also presented scientists with a new mystery: its lack of fine particles, or interplanetary dust, which would normally accumulate through millions of years of space weathering.

The paper offered theories but no definitive conclusions.
******************************************************************************

Wow. This is what you get out of that? We see a body that shows the results of collisions, which is consistent with the view that planets form via collisions. We want to understand this in more detail and comment that we don't know what happens at that level of detail, and you see this as saying we don't know *anything*??

Why try to make one belief seem so superior to another?
Both are beliefs, aren't they?
Scientists believe. Why try to deny that?

Scientists 'believe' based on evidence and hold ideas tentatively subject to new evidence.

Yes, that is superior, in my view.

 

[shunyadragon]

I didn't know that. Yeah, I'd like to see the sources, pleases.

Note the bold.

From: Our species may be 150,000 years older than we thought

Has our species been hiding its real age? Fossils found in Morocco suggest the Homo sapiens lineage became distinct as early as 350,000 years ago – adding as much as 150,000 years to our species’ history.

“It was indeed a big wow [moment],” says Jean-Jacques Hublin at the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig, Germany, who led the analysis with Abdelouahed Ben-Ncer at the National Institute of Archaeology and Heritage in Rabat, Morocco.

On a literal reading of the fossil record, H. sapiens was thought to have emerged in East Africa roughly 200,000 years ago. But some researchers have long suspected that the roots of our species are deeper, given that H. sapiens-like fossils in South Africa have been tentatively dated at 260,000 years old.

Find out more: Instant Expert Event – The Evolution of Humans
The new evidence provides solid support to those suspicions. It comes from a Moroccan site called Jebel Irhoud (pictured below), which has been puzzling human evolution researchers for more than 50 years.

The site at Jebel Irhoud
Shannon McPherron, MPI EVA Leipzig

Hominin remains were found at the site in the 1960s. They have such an odd mix of ancient and modern features that they were initially mistaken for an African version of Neanderthals. Later reassessments put them closer to our species, and about a decade ago a dating technique suggested they were about 160,000 years old.

But by that point in prehistory, it is conventionally assumed that our fully modern species were already living in Africa, which made the Jebel Irhoud hominins’ mix of ancient and modern features confusing.

So Hublin and Ben-Ncer’s team returned to Jebel Irhoud to try to solve the puzzle. In fresh excavations, they found stone tools and more fragmentary hominin remains, including pieces from an adult skull.

An analysis of the new fossils, and of those found at the site in the 1960s, confirms that the hominins had a primitive, elongated braincase. But the new adult skull shows that the hominins combined this ancient feature with a small, lightly built “modern” face – one that the researchers say is virtually indistinguishable from H. sapiens.

Reconstruction of the earliest known Homo sapiens fossils
Philipp Gunz, MPI EVA Leipzig

But what about the confusing date? In a complementary study, Shannon McPherron, also at the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, and his team took a closer look at the stone tools. Many of them had been baked, he says – probably because they were discarded after use and then heated when the hominins set fires on the ground nearby.

This heating “resets” the tools’ response to natural radiation in the environment. By assessing the levels of radiation at the site and measuring the radiation response in the tools, McPherron and his colleagues established that the tools were heated between 280,000 and 350,000 years ago. McPherron’s team also re-dated one of the hominin fossils found in the 1960s using their insight into the radiation levels at Jebel Irhoud and concluded it is 250,000 to 320,000 years old.

Armed with these dates, the Moroccan hominins become easier to understand, says Hublin. The researchers suggest that H. sapiens had begun to emerge – literally face-first – between about 250,000 and 350,000 years ago. Although other features of their anatomy still looked primitive, the Jebel Irhoud hominins should be considered the earliest known members of our species, say Hublin and his colleagues.

Not everyone is convinced, however. “There is a bit of a redefinition of what a modern human is here,” says Lee Berger at the University of the Witwatersrand in Johannesburg, South Africa.

Modern-looking face
“The face is modern looking,” says Juan Luis Arsuaga at the Complutense University of Madrid, Spain. “But the mandible [jawbone] is not clearly modern. I would say that Jebel Irhoud is not yet H. sapiens, but I would bet that H. sapiens evolved from something very similar to Jebel Irhoud.”

However, Chris Stringer at the Natural History Museum in London is willing to loosen the definition of H. sapiens. He says he would once have restricted the name to “anatomically modern humans” – those with the full set of features we see in living people. “Now, I think that anatomically modern humans are only a sub-group within the species H. sapiens,” he says. We should consider including the Moroccan hominins in our species even though some of their features look ancient, he says.

Stringer thinks we shouldn’t be surprised to discover that our species is far more ancient than once thought. We know that our lineage split from the Neanderthal lineage at some point in prehistory, with Neanderthals then evolving in Europe while H. sapiens evolved in Africa. Recently, fossil and genetic evidence has suggested that this split occurred at least 500,000 years ago. “In my view, the date of this divergence should mark the origin of these two groups,” says Stringer.

This would imply that, roughly 500,000 years ago, Neanderthal-like hominins began appearing in Europe and H. sapiens-like hominins began appearing in Africa. In keeping with this idea, 430,000-year-old hominins found at a site called Sima de los Huesos in Spain do seem to be Neanderthal-like. Jebel Irhoud could be seen as the African, H. sapiens equivalent of Sima de los Huesos, says Stringer.

Well-dated fossils
Aida Gómez-Robles at University College London agrees with this way of thinking. “I would predict that we will find in the future even older transitional forms for both Neanderthals and modern humans,” she says.

But although the Jebel Irhoud fossils suggest H. sapiens had evolved a modern face 350,000 years ago, working out how, where and when our species evolved its other modern features will be challenging. “We have so few well-dated fossils,” says McPherron.

Adding to the challenge, says Berger, is that we know H. sapiens wasn’t the only hominin in Africa at the time. Earlier this year, he and his colleagues confirmed that an unusually small-brained human – Homo naledi – found in the Dinaledi chamber of South Africa’s Rising Star cave was alive between 236,000 and 335,000 years ago. “It’s amazing that Jebel Irhoud and Dinaledi exactly overlap. That’s fantastic,” he says, adding that the two are essentially the only securely dated African hominins known from this time period.

As such, Berger thinks any conversation about the spread and rise to dominance in Africa of H. sapiens has to make reference to H. naledi.

“I’m disappointed that they didn’t include H. naledi in their discussions,” he says. “We just don’t know the relationship between these two hominins – they might even have interbred. H. naledi has to be relevant to the debate.”



Read more: Our species may be 150,000 years older than we thought

 

[nPeace]

Do you really see the three situations as being the same?


Except that is precisely backwards. The theory of evolution has given testable predictions that have been verified by observation. The Bible is, at best, reliable for times after about 900BC and then only as a context for the rest of the story.


So we are investigating in more detail processes we know are happening all over the universe. What is the problem?

We all know what conjecture is. You don't need me to tell you that.
What do you mean by... "The Bible is, at best, reliable for times after about 900BC and then only as a context for the rest of the story."?

Wow. This is what you get out of that? We see a body that shows the results of collisions, which is consistent with the view that planets form via collisions. We want to understand this in more detail and comment that we don't know what happens at that level of detail, and you see this as saying we don't know *anything*??

Where did I say, "we don't know anything?"

Scientists 'believe' based on evidence and hold ideas tentatively subject to new evidence.

Yes, that is superior, in my view.

So. They believe.
They hold to beliefs based on what they assume to be true, in cases where historical inquiry is involved. Experimental science is different.

It seems to me persons are still fighting hard to hold one belief above another

 

[tas8831]

The "expert" rants!

This is the size of the new skull they found.....its tiny, like a small dog.

Little fetuses have small skulls. Must not be human...

This is a reconstruction of the features of this "ancestor" along with the cranium size.
There is no real evidence that humans had ancestors who looked like this.
It is an assumption...based more on imagination, rather than real evidence.

Right - just like all science that does not support a giant wooden boat and all that nonsense.

Human skull....note cranium size.

Who does it most resemble? Ape or man? Isn't this imagination running riot?

Yours, yes.
It did refer to an ancestor - DUH - and at 3.8 million, right in line with other ancestral crania. But you know
all that, what with y our extensive background in all science.

I don't know what all the fuss is about...?

This Ethiopian "find" is not a "human" skull...it is clearly a small ape. Who says its an ancestor of man?

Right, gee golly, all just made up out of the blue. Like your creation tales.

Science does not really know that apes evolved into humans....it is only supposed that they did.....and with very flimsy evidence to back it up

And the usual dishonesty I have come to expect - look at this - all so flimsy - almost like you didn't see this the last 8 times I posted it for you to ignore because it shoots down your dishonest mantras:

I forget now who originally posted these on this forum, but I keep it in my archives because it offers a nice 'linear' progression of testing a methodology and then applying it - I have posted this more than a dozen times for creationists who claim that there is no evidence for evolution:

The tested methodology:

Science 25 October 1991:
Vol. 254. no. 5031, pp. 554 - 558

Gene trees and the origins of inbred strains of mice

WR Atchley and WM Fitch

Extensive data on genetic divergence among 24 inbred strains of mice provide an opportunity to examine the concordance of gene trees and species trees, especially whether structured subsamples of loci give congruent estimates of phylogenetic relationships. Phylogenetic analyses of 144 separate loci reproduce almost exactly the known genealogical relationships among these 24 strains. Partitioning these loci into structured subsets representing loci coding for proteins, the immune system and endogenous viruses give incongruent phylogenetic results. The gene tree based on protein loci provides an accurate picture of the genealogical relationships among strains; however, gene trees based upon immune and viral data show significant deviations from known genealogical affinities.

======================

Science, Vol 255, Issue 5044, 589-592

Experimental phylogenetics: generation of a known phylogeny

DM Hillis, JJ Bull, ME White, MR Badgett, and IJ Molineux
Department of Zoology, University of Texas, Austin 78712.

Although methods of phylogenetic estimation are used routinely in comparative biology, direct tests of these methods are hampered by the lack of known phylogenies. Here a system based on serial propagation of bacteriophage T7 in the presence of a mutagen was used to create the first completely known phylogeny. Restriction-site maps of the terminal lineages were used to infer the evolutionary history of the experimental lines for comparison to the known history and actual ancestors. The five methods used to reconstruct branching pattern all predicted the correct topology but varied in their predictions of branch lengths; one method also predicts ancestral restriction maps and was found to be greater than 98 percent accurate.

==================================

Science, Vol 264, Issue 5159, 671-677

Application and accuracy of molecular phylogenies

DM Hillis, JP Huelsenbeck, and CW Cunningham
Department of Zoology, University of Texas, Austin 78712.

Molecular investigations of evolutionary history are being used to study subjects as diverse as the epidemiology of acquired immune deficiency syndrome and the origin of life. These studies depend on accurate estimates of phylogeny. The performance of methods of phylogenetic analysis can be assessed by numerical simulation studies and by the experimental evolution of organisms in controlled laboratory situations. Both kinds of assessment indicate that existing methods are effective at estimating phylogenies over a wide range of evolutionary conditions, especially if information about substitution bias is used to provide differential weightings for character transformations.



We can hereby ASSUME that the results of an application of those methods have merit.


Application of the tested methodology:

Implications of natural selection in shaping 99.4% nonsynonymous DNA identity between humans and chimpanzees: Enlarging genus Homo

"Here we compare ≈90 kb of coding DNA nucleotide sequence from 97 human genes to their sequenced chimpanzee counterparts and to available sequenced gorilla, orangutan, and Old World monkey counterparts, and, on a more limited basis, to mouse. The nonsynonymous changes (functionally important), like synonymous changes (functionally much less important), show chimpanzees and humans to be most closely related, sharing 99.4% identity at nonsynonymous sites and 98.4% at synonymous sites. "



Mitochondrial Insertions into Primate Nuclear Genomes Suggest the Use of numts as a Tool for Phylogeny

"Moreover, numts identified in gorilla Supercontigs were used to test the human–chimp–gorilla trichotomy, yielding a high level of support for the sister relationship of human and chimpanzee."



A Molecular Phylogeny of Living Primates

"Once contentiously debated, the closest human relative of chimpanzee (Pan) within subfamily Homininae (Gorilla, Pan, Homo) is now generally undisputed. The branch forming the Homo andPanlineage apart from Gorilla is relatively short (node 73, 27 steps MP, 0 indels) compared with that of thePan genus (node 72, 91 steps MP, 2 indels) and suggests rapid speciation into the 3 genera occurred early in Homininae evolution. Based on 54 gene regions, Homo-Pan genetic distance range from 6.92 to 7.90×10−3 substitutions/site (P. paniscus and P. troglodytes, respectively), which is less than previous estimates based on large scale sequencing of specific regions such as chromosome 7[50]. "
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

CONCLUSION:

This evidence lays out the results of employing a tested methodology on the question of Primate evolution. The same general criteria/methods have been used on nearly all facets of the evolution of living things.

 

[Subduction Zone]

We all know what conjecture is. You don't need me to tell you that.
What do you mean by... "The Bible is, at best, reliable for times after about 900BC and then only as a context for the rest of the story."?

He appears to be referring to the refuted myths of the Bible.

Where did I say, "we don't know anything?"

Perhaps you did not. But you have to admit that that part of your post that @Polymath257 responded to was totally bassackwards.

So. They believe.
They hold to beliefs based on what they assume to be true, in cases where historical inquiry is involved. Experimental science is different.

It seems to me persons are still fighting hard to hold one belief above another

No, the sciences are based upon what we know. What we can see, observe and test. They cannot use "assumptions" in the way that you claim. Worse yet when you use the word "assumption" in that fashion you put the burden of proof upon yourself. What were their assumptions? Why are they assumptions? If you cannot answer this then your claim was not an honest one. It is always better to ask proper questions than to risk breaking the Ninth Commandment if you are a Christian. That Commandment is not a ban on lying. It is a ban on making false statements about others. If you are talking about others you need to be sure that your claims are true. If you cannot support your claims the odds are that you made an untrue statement about others and therefore broke that commandment.


Evolution is testable. That means if it is wrong it can be shown to be wrong. If you cannot think of a proper and reasonable test for your beliefs then you are no different from a believer in Voodoo, Islam, or even the Great Juju.

 

[Polymath257]

We all know what conjecture is. You don't need me to tell you that.

Yes, and I know that all scientific conclusions are tentative to at least some extent. That doens't mean we don't know anything.

What do you mean by... "The Bible is, at best, reliable for times after about 900BC and then only as a context for the rest of the story."?

I mean that the Bible is unreliable when it comes to information before that time. After that time it is reliable concerning people and places, but the details of the stories are propaganda.

Where did I say, "we don't know anything?"

You quoted someone as saying we don't know how planets form. His clear meaning was that we don't know some (even many) details, but we do understand the overall process. You implication was that the whole process was in question.

So. They believe.
They hold to beliefs based on what they assume to be true, in cases where historical inquiry is involved.

No. They hold these ideas because the evidence available pointed in that direction. The views have been tested in a variety of ways and have been supported in each case.

Let me ask you this: is all investigation of history based on 'speculation'?

Experimental science is different.

Really? How so? You realize that historical science often uses the results of experimental science as the base for its conclusions, right?

It seems to me persons are still fighting hard to hold one belief above another

Not fighting hard to hold the belief. I'm fighting hard against the misconceptions that many creationists seem to have about those beliefs and the foundation for having those beliefs. And they have been apparent in this thread as well as many others.

One of the BIG misconceptions is that it is all based on unwarranted assumptions.

 

[nPeace]

Yes, and I know that all scientific conclusions are tentative to at least some extent. That doens't mean we don't know anything.

I never said we don't know anything. I don't know why you find that necessary to say.

I mean that the Bible is unreliable when it comes to information before that time. After that time it is reliable concerning people and places, but the details of the stories are propaganda.

That's your opinion.
Everyone has one.
We say the same thing about you theories.

You quoted someone as saying we don't know how planets form. His clear meaning was that we don't know some (even many) details, but we do understand the overall process. You implication was that the whole process was in question.

So 'We don't know how planets formed' means 'we do know how planets formed'? Well, I'll be a munkey's uncle.
In case you believe I don't know how to read and understand, I think the better approach would be to give me something that I can read and understand, because what you said there, makes absolutely no kind of sense to me.
Papers?

No. They hold these ideas because the evidence available pointed in that direction. The views have been tested in a variety of ways and have been supported in each case.

Right. The evidence available was assumed to point in that direction.
Many times the views have been tested, and assumed to be right, until other evidence showed it was wrong, and the puzzling evidence, called for various adjustments in the theory. So that to this day puzzling finds call for continuous adjustments.
So in each case, the theory has supportive evidence to prove it true.
Oh dear.

Let me ask you this: is all investigation of history based on 'speculation'?

No.

Really? How so? You realize that historical science often uses the results of experimental science as the base for its conclusions, right?

So?

Not fighting hard to hold the belief. I'm fighting hard against the misconceptions that many creationists seem to have about those beliefs and the foundation for having those beliefs. And they have been apparent in this thread as well as many others.

One of the BIG misconceptions is that it is all based on unwarranted assumptions.

So you say. I wholeheartedly disagree, for the reasons I have given - now, and previously.

 

[Deeje]

Whatever aligns with the evidence.

Science aligns with the evidence.
God doesn't.

You are free to believe whatever you wish. Science cannot prove what they theorize. Guesswork based on similarity is assumption, not fact. e.g. A similar earbone cannot make a four legged land dweller into a whale without a whole lot of supposition, followed by a bucketload of suggestions. You all swallow this stuff and then accuse those who support intelligent design of being short on evidence? That's funny.

"Evidence" used to promote what science "believes" is interpreted by them. Just like the Bible, it can be twisted to lead people to wrong conclusions.

Six scientists can give the same "evidence" six different interpretations with language such as "could have" or "might have" or "leads us to the conclusion that"....to indicate a possibility, not a provable fact. Only a small part of the evolutionary theory is based on fact. Using that little bit of fact, they manufacture a whole lot of conjecture. You havent noticed? Most people don't.

The biggest example of that is "speciation" which is based on "adaptation". In lab experiments this adaptive process is confined to a single species, and then, expanding on what has been observed they "suggest" that it can and did go much further. There is no proof that it ever did. "Evidence" is not "proof", it is interpreted to support a theory, but presented as if it were fact. There are very few facts in evolutionary science.

It's a snow job. Someone is having a lend of you all. In your haste to get rid of God, you have been willingly led into another unsubstantiated "belief system".

This finding of a supposedly 3.8 million year old skull is a bit of a joke when you read the circumstances of its discovery. Do you believe that some goat herder just picked the jaw bone up off the ground and then he was moved to find the archeologist, who just happened to find the skull a short distance away, lying on the ground in plain sight?
Seriously? You don't find that a bit unbelievable?

How easily convinced are you?

 

[Deeje]

You are correct. Humans don't "come from apes"
We come from hominins.

View attachment 32448

Are these your relatives? Thank God they aren't mine.

There is no proof that any of these ever existed except in the imagination of scientists. No humans existed millions of years ago, so everything that existed before intelligent recording of data is conjecture...educated guesswork. You can believe it if you like.

 

[Deeje]

Because its bipedal...that's the specialty. Also significant evolution of the teeth from ancestral ape-type (fruit eating large canines, no grinding molars) to human type (smaller canines, rise of grinding teeth) can be seen.

But I don't expect you to get enlightened about any of this..and I don't care if you accept or not.

Many apes are still bipedal. They found a skull, so how is this proof of how it walked 3.8 million years ago?

Teeth are used to suggest all manner of things. Humans are at present, omnivores, but according to scripture all species are designed to be herbivores, except perhaps the carrion creatures, who are designed as the clean-up crew.

Humans apparently did not evolve that very important component in their nature....the one that naturally prompts them to recycle their waste......we are so intelligent that we are drowning in the results of our own inventiveness. We can't dispose of our rubbish without making the planet pay.....greedily raping the earth of its resources and reaping the consequences of completely polluting the only home we have.....to the point of endangering our own existence. We are robbing the other creatures of their homes as well, leading to their extinction. How clever are we really? How much is science accountable for all that?

Evolution of teeth is an assumption because of one small thing missing in the evolutionary theory....the *links* that join one kind of creature to another. When they find all those millions of missing links, please let us know.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You are free to believe whatever you wish. Science cannot prove what they theorize. Guesswork based on similarity is assumption, not fact. e.g. A similar earbone cannot make a four legged land dweller into a whale without a whole lot of supposition, followed by a bucketload of suggestions. You all swallow this stuff and then accuse those who support intelligent design of being short on evidence? That's funny.

"Evidence" used to promote what science "believes" is interpreted by them. Just like the Bible, it can be twisted to lead people to wrong conclusions.

Six scientists can give the same "evidence" six different interpretations with language such as "could have" or "might have" or "leads us to the conclusion that"....to indicate a possibility, not a provable fact. Only a small part of the evolutionary theory is based on fact. Using that little bit of fact, they manufacture a whole lot of conjecture. You havent noticed? Most people don't.

The biggest example of that is "speciation" which is based on "adaptation". In lab experiments this adaptive process is confined to a single species, and then, expanding on what has been observed they "suggest" that it can and did go much further. There is no proof that it ever did. "Evidence" is not "proof", it is interpreted to support a theory, but presented as if it were fact. There are very few facts in evolutionary science.

It's a snow job. Someone is having a lend of you all. In your haste to get rid of God, you have been willingly led into another unsubstantiated "belief system".

This finding of a supposedly 3.8 million year old skull is a bit of a joke when you read the circumstances of its discovery. Do you believe that some goat herder just picked the jaw bone up off the ground and then he was moved to find the archeologist, who just happened to find it a short distance away, lying on the ground in plain sight?
Seriously? You don't find that a bit unbelievable?

How easily convinced are you?

Sorry, but the cowardice of creation "scientists" prevent them from being able to claim to have any scientific evidence. The definition of the concept is straight forward and clear. One must be bold enough to risk one's idea in the form of a testable hypothesis first. I have yet to see a creationist come up with a proper scientific hypothesis for their own beliefs. Just in case any creationist care to try a hypothesis must be testable on its own merits. It cannot result on the perceived "failure" of the hypothesis of another. Claiming that "when evolution is proven that would falsify my hypothesis" is an example of a failed test.

 

[Deeje]

You should have stopped at that, and hence the reason why we should never trust anything that comes from the past - including all that has been written by those unknown to us.

Well, selective reading leads to misinterpretation....I said that when money is the motivation, we should not trust humans to tell the truth.

I love the fact that God can't be bought....and his secretaries were never paid.

Science has a lot of motivation to fudge the truth. As well as a lot of motivation to misuse what science has produced when financial concerns were permitted to override ethics.