17 votes

Rare skull sparks human evolution controversy

This is fascinating . Check out the link to see the picture. Leaves a lot of questions to be answered.

(CNN) -- Fragments of humans' ancient relatives are scattered across the globe. Sometimes a tooth or a few bones are all we have to tell us about an entire species closely related to humans that lived thousands or millions of years ago.
So when anyone finds a complete skull of a possible human ancestor, paleoanthropologists rejoice. But with new knowledge comes new controversy over a fossil's place in our species' very fuzzy family tree.
In the eastern European nation of Georgia, a group of researchers has excavated a 1.8 million-year-old skull of an ancient human relative, whose only name right now is Skull 5. They report their findings in the journal Science, and say it belongs to our genus, called Homo.
"This is most complete early Homo skull ever found in the world," said lead study author David Lordkipanidze, researcher at the Georgian National Museum in Tbilisi.

http://edition.cnn.com/2013/10/17/world/europe/ancient-skull...



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

I guess -

I guess no one has ever heard of Epigenetics or DNA methylation. Natural selection doesn't change DNA, it alters a base code that already existed. The fact is that all ancient human beings have human DNA.

All my life I have been seeing incredibly important (!)

news stories about this or that bone or missing link or whatnot. They all came to nothing. This bone is now having its 15 minutes of fame.

Microscopes and Telescopes

Whether we look through a microscope, or a telescope, we see with great amazement, a total and undeniable presence of order, perfection if you will, much of what we still do not fully understand and never will we fully understand all these marvelous things.

When we look at some of those things that man has made such as automobiles, airplanes, submarines, computers etc. we know that none of these things could of by themselves come into existence. They had to be planned, designed, and then made with substantive things and in an orderly way. To say that these things could have come from "nothing" if given enough time is utter and complete foolishness!

YES, FOOLISHNESS!

They must have a creator who designed these things and then made them accordingly.

With that in mind, how can we even think for a moment, that all this great "order" of all creation of beauty and wonderment that we see around us, and above us, within us, came from "nothing" over a period of billions or millions of years?

To say this, is sheer and utter foolishness, non-sense, and a willful denial of that which is so clearly seen, with the intent that those who deny this very clear and present evidence of creation can also deny it's very Creator and thereby also deny that great day of judgment that is soon to come!

THAT my friends is the REAL reason for the idea of "evolution".

To all who do so, know this... you still have time, (maybe not more than today for some) time to repent and turn unto the Lord and seek His mercy and forgiveness and call upon Him for salvation in the only name under heaven whereby we must be saved, the name of Jesus Christ!

Remember..... Time is short, eternity is not!

Peace

" In Thee O Lord do I put my trust " ~ Psalm 31:1~

blood typing fossils?

seems they (fossils) can be 'blood typed'..i am on the hunt for more info and will post findings.

ITMT, if anyone here has already wandered down that path, please share your findings!

Moon landing

Remember those really deep boots the astronauts wore during the first moon landing. They wore those because scientist were convinced that there would be copious amounts of dust layered on the surface of the moon because of the age of the earth. What they found was very little surface dust. There's lots of theories and then there's Truth. The truth is the earth is not as old as we have been led to believe.

Babs

I don't know about their boots, but many scientists

really did think that the moon must have thick dust to some extent. I remember that much.

Evolution

I beg you all to be open minded about science and the beauty that come with it. To me, I find a world explained by the incredible laws of the universe and the inherent genius of evolution to be one of the greatest comforts and humbling factors about the world we live in. I truly do not mean to condemn or belittle certain creationist beliefs but I feel that many of us act incredibly emotionally when it comes to topics like this. As seen by the argument taking place below.

If you are a skeptic of evolution then I ask that you take the time to watch this very short video, not with a predisposed assumption that evolution takes something away from God or is factually baseless, but that maybe there is more to it then some would like to admit.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oweUN-GaN3M

Boom

goes the dynamite.

Ĵīɣȩ Ɖåđşŏń

"Fully half the quotations found on the internet are either mis-attributed, or outright fabrications." - Abraham Lincoln

OK

The Video explains nothing .. So where does the laws of the universe come from? If you believe in God this is easy to explain. Evolution is just one problem for the Atheists, where did our moon come from? Without the moon life wouldn't exist. The atheists can not explain this either. Where did DNA or information come from, the RNA atheistic explaination doesn't work. DNA is like a text book or computer code, where and how does this come about naturally? It doesn't. Where did the universe come from. There are 100's of ways to date the Earth. Why are the seas not salty enough? Carbon 14 in diamonds? Do more research and you will find goo to you evolution is a crock of junk

Where did God come from?

See what I did there?

“The welfare of the people in particular has always been the alibi of tyrants.” — Albert Camus

Where does anything/everything come from?

See what I did there?

Who created G-d?

If it were possible, wouldn't the creator of God, be G-d?

So who/what created that God?

Man?

So then, again... who created man?

Chicken or the egg?

Speaking of which...???

...

G-d... What is and always was, and always will be....

John 1:1 - 1:2 -
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God."

G-d also becomes flesh, Yeshua, Son of Man...

John 1:14 -
"The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth."

And from Yeshua's own Mouth...

John 8:58 -
"Very truly I tell you," Jesus answered, "before Abraham was born, I am!"

PEOPLE OPPOSING TYRANNY - Real Grass Roots!
Are you a POT or a PET - Person Embracing Tyranny?

Oh, yeah?

Let me quote you from the Holy Book of the Universe:

"The universe, that which is, was, and always will be..." - Chapter 1, verses 8-10

"In the beginning there was the Universe. Wait, what beginning? There was no beginning." - Chapter 1, verses 20-22

and finally:

"Whosoever uses the Holy Book of the Universe in an argument, automatically wins the argument." - Chapter 1, verses 40-41

Boom, I win.

“The welfare of the people in particular has always been the alibi of tyrants.” — Albert Camus

LOL!! Love it

LOL!! Love it

Incapable of percieving the Bible frm a philosphical perspective

?

Why would you assume that just because I quoted from the good book, that I was being dogmatic?

I set up the verse by asking you some philosophical questions, that require philosophical answers. The Bible has those answers, imho.

Clearly, you don't understand. Or don't want to. Not everything is tangible.

Maybe you should study up on quantum physics, to expand your understanding of 'physical reality'.

PEOPLE OPPOSING TYRANNY - Real Grass Roots!
Are you a POT or a PET - Person Embracing Tyranny?

1. moon, the matter of which

1. moon, the matter of which the moon is created is the same as found on earth. the leading theory is that another planet collided with the Earth a very long time ago and the moon is the result of the debris created and gravity, obviously.

2. "without the moon life wouldn't exist." Granted that is a somewhat fair point, the way in which you are using it for your argument is self defeating. There are many features of our planet/solar system that "need to be" in order to sustain life. This is the very reason that we do not find life on other planets because our's sustains it. I think you mean to say "the earth is perfect for us." But the truth is "We are perfect for the earth!"

3. "Where did DNA come from?" This is a great question and I'm not going to pretend like I know what I'm talking about! lol. But! I must say that I think 4.54 billion years is an impossible amount of time for the human brain to fathom and the development of life over those many years is something I can accept for reasons I will say in just a second!

4. "Where did the universe come from?" Well! There are many books you could read to understand this. But in short quantum mechanics teaches that particles do in fact "pop" in an out of existence at any given second even in the atoms that comprise you! Furthermore the Doppler Effect, you must google and read if you are not familiar with it it is truly fascinating, without a doubt tells us that currently the universe is expanding exponentially fast in every direction. We therefore know, ligically, that at (13 billion years ago) some point in the distant past the universe was very very small and very very dense, The Big Bang! The biggest issue this question of yours raises is that if the answer to this question was indeed "God" or a creator. Where in the world did he come from?! It is logically unsound to solve a problem with a solution that has the exact same problem!

I am tired of writing but in short I think evolution and science are beautiful. Perhaps the most beautiful things we humans have on earth and it is not ok to fear using your brain! Don't just say "God did it." We must strive to learn!!

please supply a link

to the idea that particles just pop out of nothing. If that has been proven it would mean that the second (I think) law of thermodynamics should be changed. Its the one that says matter can neither be created or destroyed.

personally

I find that evolution is extremely poorly defined. Evolution means "change over time". For something that is trying to define how everything got here over billions of years that is an extremely broad definition.

personally I think the creationist do a much better job of defining it than the evolutionist by simply pointing out the difference of micro and macro evolution. Micro being cats producing cats. Macro being how cats and dogs are both related to the same animal.

The problem with macro evolution is that it has never been demonstrated in a lab. Some say it has been demonstrated in fossils but just because skeletons or skeleton fragments are similar does not mean the organs or muscles were. Evolution should adhere to the scientific method, particularly the parts that say testable and repeatable. If macro evolution happens show us in a lab.

It is called Macro evolution for a reason

If there is one question out there that would lead to the belief in evolution I believe this is it: Do you believe what geologists claim is the age of the Earth? 4.5 billion years? If you do then it is easy to see that many Micro evolutions, ie... point mutations, could lead to the diversity we see today. If we look back at the fossil record and combine it with what we know about the geological record, we see that the first fossilized life forms were preserved around 3 billion years ago. This would give plenty of time for helpful mutations, ie micro evolution, to give rise to macro evolution, speciation and diversity, we see today. If you believe that the world is only 6-12 thousand years old, then macro evolution would be impossible.

-Matthew Good

Well thats part of the problem

Your post basically said if the world is billions of years old evolution must have happened.

If its science it must be testable and repeatable. If it takes a thousand years to test the theory, and two thousand years to repeat the results so be it. There has been several experiments that have taken a hundred years to prove, let this be the thousand year experiment. I would be fascinated wish a biologist (or anyone else for that matter) setting up a thousand year experiment to prove that micro evolution becomes macro evolution.

Where did I say "must have happened"

I didn't. I just said it is easier to believe. To me it really isn't that important to believe in evolution. I have an interest in biology and so it is important for me to believe. I also enjoy the debate. We also do not really know how fast macro evolution takes. It could take a few thousand years as in S.J. Gould's punctuated equilibrium, or it could be gradual, happening over tens of thousands of years. It is up in the air because it is hard for a fossil to form, therefore, we do not have every "in between" possible.

-Matthew Good

sorry I thought it was implied

all my school books said "must of" so I am kind of used to it. Like I said it would be interesting for someone to set up a thousand or so years worth of lab experiments to show macro evolution. Start with the micro evolution stuff, and work your way up.

For me I dont think the debate works on the evolution side because at least in my mind they really dont have a working hypothesis for how it works except it takes a long time.

It's all good...

I'm not even sure how you would receive funding for such a project. The hypothesis, in my opinion, works pretty well. Given enough time, many beneficial mutations will diversify a population enough to create a new species. Like I said, it is important to believe in radioactive dating if you are to comprehend macro evolution. We see micro evolution all of the time. It really isn't a stretch to say that many of these over time will create separate species. Macro evolution is the same as micro evolution except that the former is over thousands of years, whereas micro can be a few generations such as bacteria becoming tolerant to misused antibiotics, or the diversity of domesticated wolves. Look at teosinte and then look at a modern corn cob. This is evolution.

-Matthew Good

heres the problem with that

assuming the current theory of the creation of life is correct we start out with all single cell orginisms. Going from a virus to bacteria to algea is huge differences Going from single cell orginisms to multi cell organisms is a huge change, and its utterly unclear how it could happen with small changes over time. Then once you have multi cell organisms you have organisms having dedicated functions for the cells, and then begin having organs and systems in its body. Going from a multi cell organism to something that has organs is like going from one cave man family to the modern world, the whole world with all the technology connections and needs. I dont know of anybody who has even attempted to explain this change in micro evolution terms. Once you have vertebrata and organs its easy to explain things in terms of micro evolution especially when there are so many different kinds of animals. there is also huge differences between mammals reptiles and birds. especially in how their hearts work, and if they are related why are their no reptiles with four chamber hearts but all mammals and all birds have four chamber hearts. As far as I can tell Micro evolution does not have answers for these questions.

It's specie to specie

Which has never been proven and certainly cannot be tested with repeatable results each time.

So, regardless of how likely it may be, or how "common sensical" it may be to you, since it is impossible to scientifically prove, it is NOT scientific fact.

Nor should it be represented as fact as that would be a lie.

actually

species to species can be shown, especially since things like wolf and fox are considered different species. The question comes down to is the definition of species good enough. I know a lot of Christians use the word kinds but again they havent really defined the word. To make things more mudled over generations animals do change, but the question is why? Is it because they are loosing information like the creationist say, or is it because they are gaining information like the atheist say? If everyone was honest, we would all admit we dont know that much about it. We dont have enough information to really define anything yet. The whole thing is annoying.

Has fox/wolf specie to specie evolution been proven?

Can you point me to the tests and test results?

Not being facetious, but the bottom line is, no matter how LIKELY it is, or how much I might BELIEVE it's true, without the repeated tests yielding the same results each time without exception, it's not proven at all.

what I am saying

is that they are both a kind of dog but they are considered different species. That the definition of species is way to broad, and lends itself to argument and not science.

Thank you

Very good point. Perception of the age is very important indeed.

If I disappear from a discussion please forgive me. My 24-7 business requires me to split mid-sentence to serve them. I am not ducking out, I will be back later to catch up.

The Wildest Stories Ever

Hahahaha ... These Athiest Evolutionists can tell some of the wildest made up stories ... It is a wonder anyone believes them

Sarcasm?

I'm sorry, I'm late to this party so I cannot tell...

If not, then I wouldn't laugh too hard, "Creationism" has some questionable "stories" as well....

"I am Troll fighter, number one"

-Ernest

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LxWb-ViejPg