Did humans evolve over the course of millions of years?
Roger47
2012/07/09 03:01:28
|
|
|||||
|
13 votes
|
|
68% | |||
|
6 votes
|
|
32% | |||
WHEN WILL THE NEXT GENERATION OF GUITAR PLAYERS GET AN EXTRA FINGER OR TWO?
Too bad Jimi never had Kids.
In fact, has ANYONE seen any EVOLVING?
I see libtards pissing bassackwards every day on SH so FIND ME SOME EVOLVING.
Just encase you are not, we don't need to play guitar to survive.
Carry on Troll.
That was proven by Dr Duncan MacDougall.
I have read the Bible and compared it with todays leading Science and have found the very things you started with, the entire Bible has things like what you brought fourth.
THE STONES ARE CRYING OUT, as John Hagee said would happen.
RIDE ON DEFINED.
Unless you're using the argument of 'human nature remains unchanged because you can't prove it doesn't', in which case I shall be forced to call on the great argument of 'I believe in a flying spaghetti monster because you can't prove there isn't one' to show you how silly that reasoning is.
As for the 'logical assessment', I can again apply that to the spaghetti monster to show you how deeply fallible your logic is:
"If neither of us can demonstrate that the flying spaghetti monster does not exist, then the only logical assessment is that is does."
As I believe I did mention in a previous post. My question though is that recorded history is at most 7000 years old (although opinions on this vary by +/- 1000. Homo sapiens has been on the Earth for 200,000 years, so can you prove for certain that the human behaviour of the last 7000 years is identical to the human behaviour of the 193,000 years before that?
All I ask in most posts on this topic is for people to provide the evidence behind what they say. It firstly allows me to separate the brill from the bull and secondly when people do provide the evidence, I usually end up learning something new, which is always a positive experience.
Secondly, we can know that certain hominid species were our direct ancestors and prove the lineage using the same physiological analysis we apply to comparing any two species, accepted by all anthropologists and biologists. The change in fossils shows a very distinct and inescapable conclusion that hominids did evolvedover time and that one branch of hominid became ourselves. The alternative to this idea is that somehow we arose on this planet independent of these species, some of which are coincidentally are almost 100% like us.
Furthermore, DNA techniques are developing to such as extant that it is now possible to extract DNA from some more recent fossils such as neanderthalensis and denisovan and compare their DNA to our own and it is only a matter of time before our techniques become advanced enough to extract DNA from older species as well.
You also seem to think that scientists love jumping to conclusions. They don't. They only state something as fact if they have e...
Secondly, we can know that certain hominid species were our direct ancestors and prove the lineage using the same physiological analysis we apply to comparing any two species, accepted by all anthropologists and biologists. The change in fossils shows a very distinct and inescapable conclusion that hominids did evolvedover time and that one branch of hominid became ourselves. The alternative to this idea is that somehow we arose on this planet independent of these species, some of which are coincidentally are almost 100% like us.
Furthermore, DNA techniques are developing to such as extant that it is now possible to extract DNA from some more recent fossils such as neanderthalensis and denisovan and compare their DNA to our own and it is only a matter of time before our techniques become advanced enough to extract DNA from older species as well.
You also seem to think that scientists love jumping to conclusions. They don't. They only state something as fact if they have evidence behind it. For example, here in the UK they have found evidence of a new type of hominid. However, all they have found are the tools. They have yet to find any remains. So what do they say? "We have found evidence of a new species of hominid we have called Homo Antecessor. However, as we have only found the tools of this hominid and no remains, it remains to be seen if this is a new species or merely an offshoot or isolated group of another already known species".
Not accepted by all thankfully, science ceases when all accept unanswered questions.
And to your example, until they can produce the species, all they are reciting is conjecture.
Similarly radioactive dating cares not if the atmospheric conditions have changed unless you're suggesting that atmosphere once contained varying levels or uranium or lead gas? So I fail to see where that line or argument came from.
And even if it was linked to atmospheric conditions, I have two words for you: ice cores.
(BTW your final sentence was pointless as you clearly didnt read what was put. The scientists conjectured nothing).
However, if you have evidence that carbon dating or radiometric dating is just 'a guess', then I invite you to share it with us. Since you dont accept anything that isnt fully answered, I assume you have some.
By the way evolution theory is based on random mutation, which is inexplicable.
As for how we know the exponential constant is correct:
1. The decay rates haven't varied during the time we've been directly measuring. But that's not long at all, so we also have....
2. Supernova!! We have anaylsed the gamma rays of many supernova and found the decay rates of the isotopes within the supernova are consistent with the ones found here on Earth. Examples of supernova studied include SN1987A, (light that's 169,000 years old), SN1991T (60 million years old) and with fading rate observation of supernova whose light is billions of years old. All show consistency with the rates found on Earth.
3. The Oklo natural nucelar reactor is a site of a naturally occuring fission reaction that started 1.8 billion years ago. The measurements of the neutron capture rates reveals no change for that period of 1.8 billion years.
4. There are many different types of radiometric dating techniques. If they were all variable, then it is highly unlikely that they would all vary in exactly the same way. But these techniques a...
As for how we know the exponential constant is correct:
1. The decay rates haven't varied during the time we've been directly measuring. But that's not long at all, so we also have....
2. Supernova!! We have anaylsed the gamma rays of many supernova and found the decay rates of the isotopes within the supernova are consistent with the ones found here on Earth. Examples of supernova studied include SN1987A, (light that's 169,000 years old), SN1991T (60 million years old) and with fading rate observation of supernova whose light is billions of years old. All show consistency with the rates found on Earth.
3. The Oklo natural nucelar reactor is a site of a naturally occuring fission reaction that started 1.8 billion years ago. The measurements of the neutron capture rates reveals no change for that period of 1.8 billion years.
4. There are many different types of radiometric dating techniques. If they were all variable, then it is highly unlikely that they would all vary in exactly the same way. But these techniques all give the same results for the same samples.
5. The results from radiometric dating techniques are consistent with other dating techniques, such as dendrochronology, ice core dating, and historical records.
The tudies you want to search to verify this are:
Emery 1972, Nomoto et al. 1997a, 1997b;,Thielemann et al. 1998, Knödlseder 2000, Prantzos 1999, Perlmutter et al. 1998, Fujii et al. 2000, Shlyakhter 1976, Renne et al. 1997.
As before, if you have any scientific evidence to prove that the rates have not remained consistent, please feel free to post it.
As for your last comment about genetic mutation being inexplicable....I teach 13 year olds that can explain it perfectly well enough and some can even quote the more famous studies. But that's another debate entirely.