A Tel Aviv University team excavating a cave in central Israel said teeth found in the cave are about 400,000 years old and resemble those of other remains of modern man, known scientifically as Homo sapiens, found in Israel. The earliest Homo sapiens remains found until now are half as old.
“It’s very exciting to come to this conclusion,” said archaeologist Avi Gopher, whose team examined the teeth with X-rays and CT scans and dated them according to the layers of earth where they were found.
He stressed that further research is needed to solidify the claim. If it does, he says, “this changes the whole picture of evolution.”
“Of course there are thousands of other faith based creation stories” evolution being the one most popular amongst non thinking ‘educated’ (indoctrinated) North Americans. Despite all their mumbo jumbo techno babble, they offer no proof except contempt and disdain for anyone who dares question it. The average evolutionist is worse than a 6 day creation fundamentalist when it comes to being dogmatic. Merely pointing out that their fundaMENTALism is no different by changing the words evolution and creation is sufficient to throw them into a rage. As the old saying goes, “When everyone thinks alike, no one is thinking at all.” My suggestion is rather than take someone else’s word for it along with all their techno babble try to think for yourself and reach YOUR own conclusions. Most of us can read. Few of us have learned how to think. If we had learned how to think Kate wouldn’t need to have headlines like, “The Science is Settled”.
1. Evolution does not claim man came from apes, it claims we share a common ancestor.
2. Evolution is not based on chance alone, it is chance and natural selection.
I would take creationist arguments more seriously if they criticized the actual theory ant not the one they got from the Watchtower magazine.
Joe, the Theory of Evolution has stood the test of time for over 150 years and every day more evidence is found confirming its basic tenants. Thousands of scientific disciplines work diligently filling in more evidence supporting it and showing their finds in museums and universities around the world.
Yet you smugly with crossed arms refuse to accept any of their findings. Fine, no one forces you to. You have a brain, use it to prove this Theory is incorrect. Find some evidence, any evidence to prove it is not a valid Theory. That is how the scientific method works, testing, always testing and changing conclusions based on new evidence.
Take a good scientific look at yourself. If you think some god created human beings in his own image he did a really poor job.
An octopus has better eyes, ours have a blind spot to accommodate the optic nerve whereas the octopus has a better design where the nerves are properly on the back of the eye.
Our jaws are getting smaller so we have too many teeth hence our wisdom teeth or back molars are disappearing and we have to have them removed in many cases.
Because of our evolved voice box we are the only animal that can’t eat and breathe at the same time. Our babies can do this until they begin to talk and hence lose this ability. That’s why we constantly swallow food down the wrong hole and choke.
Our appendix is disappearing as its use as another source of digestion isn’t needed as fire breaks down the tough fibers in meat and plants.
We have back and joint problems due to our vertical stance as we evolved from our former horizontal one.
Wasn’t that long ago that homo sapiens were defined as the only animal specie using tools. We have now found many animals and birds selecting, refining and using tools to obtain food.
It also wasn’t that long ago that anyone questioning the edicts of our supposed betters was burned at the stake as I am sure Suzuki would love to see again. Wonder why where Islam is practiced is a dead zone, it prohibits questioning.
The greatest scientific statement of discovery “That’s interesting, wonder why that happened, hmmm?”
Much better that we follow the ways of nomadic Israeli scribes borrowing from earlier Egyptian, Babylonian and Sumerian scribes…
Tell me again what they borrowed
Although I am not a scholar of evolution my understanding is that natural selection entails a mutation.
This possibly explains why evolution is not apparently a steady gradual process but a series of leaps. Between these leaps species show little variation. These leaps are likely the result of natural crises inducing a storm of mutation…with most mutations failing to be successful.
Periodic Magnetic reversals are prime candidates as agents of mutations. We have much evidence that radiation greatly affects DNA and induces mutations.
Both creationism and Evolution are both unfalsfiable concepts…logically or scientifically.
Knight 99
Personally being a former occupant of a foxhole, the concept of a divinity is rational. I agree that it is more respectful to consider intelligent design than “waving a wand”.
But then it is logically prudent to allow that the divinity is a personal concept—-a concept unique to every mind/soul.
My God is more the “God of Hosts” rather than a tolerant, pacifist vegan.
There is merit to judging religions….who would condone the celebration of a culture/religion which features virgin sacrifice or cannibalism?
Whatever you are comfortable with.
“So the moas have turned out to be just remarkable in so many ways about basic evolutionary processes, and you think you’ve got the whole thing sorted out…and you’ve got to remember they only went extinct 650 years ago and we’ve got thousands if not tens of thousands of skeletons of these things, and we still couldn’t work it out. And if you’re looking at our ability to completely understand human evolution and Africa from the remnants of a few bits of bone and some teeth left behind and we can understand the series of steps between the species, certainly we can see the change, certainly we can understand the general process, but the specifics? If we can’t get it right 600 years ago, how are we going to do it 500,000 years ago with a tiny amount of material?”
Dr. Alan Cooper
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/scienceshow/stories/2009/2642628.htm#transcript
The science is not settled. Evolution is true because the theory has hung around for 150 years? Silly. The 4-elements theory of the Middle Ages hung around for 100s of years, too. Paradigm and world-view shifts happen all the time, and scientific theories come and go, especially when the crusty, life-time-invested-in-the-old-theory scientists finally die out and the new chaps are given a chance to publish. You need to read Thomas Kuhn.
Don’t believe in a Creator God, or a Designer, if you don’t want to. But I’m not going to rule Him out because some theory, originating in the desire to get rid of the need for God and based on “a few bones and some teeth”, and scientists blind to the bias in their own world view tell me that all the fantastic life forms around us came from nothing and chance. Those scientists believe first, THEN they see, because they’re immersed in their world-view. If the evidence doesn’t suit their theory, they dispute the evidence. Same as the creationists they belittle.
Oh, and spare me the “flat earth” and “do you believe in gravity” sneers. Observable science is one thing. Fantasies about the origins of life are quite another.
P.S.: Species adapting to their environments over time is observable, but it’s not goo-to-you evolution. The breakdowns of structures and systems in the bodies of living things described by dave are observable evidence of mutations losing genetic information and functionability over time — evolution needs gains in genetic info and functionability.
We all believe first, then we see.
And anyone responding with the words “I”, “Me”, “You” etc. is proving he/she doesn’t believe in non-Designer evolution, deep down. From where do collections of atoms, ultimately composed of a few elements just floating around billions of years ago, get a soul? Become separate individuals? Make free choices?
If you’re an evolutionist, you ultimately have to believe all you are are atoms bouncing around, subject to the laws of physics. Everything predetermined by the angle and projection of that next bounce.
Give me God’s providence any day.
And if you respond in a huff with paragraphs of info about how wrong I am, I’ll just wonder why would mere walking collections of atoms care at all about all this, anyway?
Guys – first, modern humans are homo sapiens sapiens. Neanderthals are homo sapiens neanderthalensis. Homo sapiens is probably the least useful shorthand anyone could be employing here.
I can tell you that as often as not teeth are the only human (in the broader sense; I certainly cosider Neanderthals “human”) trace you ever find on an excavation of this sort. If there’s nothing to go on but a tooth or two, then there’s probably nothing to see here, folks.
Dave you’re funny. The evidence you provide indicates you are as ignorant of Christianity as you accuse me of being toward science. Let me give you a little clue. In Christianity our earthy existence is temporary and transformational. When God said, “Let us make man in Our image” He wasn’t talking about the human body form. He was talking about mankind’s spiritual makeup. God’s goal is not to have His children running around resembling monkeys for all eternity. He created the entire universe and all that is in it that through said universe His children may become like Him. This world is sort of like grade one in school. You only go to grade one for a set period then you move on. At the end of this life we are moving on.
As for evolution the data that supports your theory likewise supports mine. You say that through minute changes over long periods of time things evolved into other things. The proof of that is in the shared DNA. I would say that God created DNA and has made variations in the DNA to bring about the various creatures. After all you wouldn’t need to create an entire new platform just to run Word instead of Excel so why would God not reuse DNA with a few alterations? You say that the creation is imperfect, witness the human eye versus the octopus eye. To which I would say ‘your point is’? Does the human eye work for all that is needed of the human eye? Does the octopus eye work for all that is needed of an octopus eye? That speaks of design. After all if I were designing a Smart Car I probably wouldn’t put the same engine in it as what is used in a 747.
Do you guys wonder whether Kate is: a) pissed off that this is turning into a windy, necessarily unoriginal design-vs.-creation debate or b) laughing because she knew this thread was destined for that?
My guess is “b”, but what do I know?
Black Mamba…I think Kate was bating us. It was just a tooth afterall, and it has been very peaceful around here lately. Don’t you think it was time for some good intellectual arguments among friends?
Posted by: sasquatch>
“Personally being a former occupant of a foxhole, the concept of a divinity is rational”……..I don’t begrudge anyone that.
“There is merit to judging religions”…………I had agreed with that.
“who would condone the celebration of a culture/religion which features virgin sacrifice or cannibalism?”………….Not I. That is why I had stated “good religions”. Obviously a broad brush, but the intent should be obvious. Islam is not considered a good religion by me, or even a religion for that matter. To me Islam is a hybrid ideology of desert nomadic cultural law and religion based on the interpretations of one unsavory historical character.
At the risk of beating a dead horse I wonder if Dave realizes that the human eye’s design optimizes vision? Correcting the “error” in the design would reduce visual acuity and increase the blind spots. The nutrient requirements of the photo receptors is such that they need a constant and immediate source. The only way that can happen is if the receptors are right beside a blood supply. If you ran the blood supply to forward facing receptors you would create many blind spots. If you tried to feed the receptors from a distance they would loose detail perception. Like any design there are compromises required but compromises do not indicate a lack of design or designer.
Joe >
“Like any design there are compromises required but compromises do not indicate a lack of design or designer.”
Well certainly not if your a social engineer!
I suppose that’s why liberals & black America thinks Obamba is a GOD.
Clearly all lies. Everyone knows that the world is 6,000 years old. Just more Jew scientists feeding us their Evilution propaganda.