Fossils challenge old evolution theory (bible, quote, believe, Adam)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I think it shows quite nicely that man's knowledge of the past is limited and that we are always learning. It shows that we can't put too much stock in current knowledge or new discoveries because we are all, even scientists, in a learning process.
It shows that man's understanding is limited, and that this limitation extends to what ancient Bible stories say.
Articles like this lead me to wonder what kind of hybreds if any, emerged from possible mating between any coexisting species before one or the other, or both, died out, leaving the hybred to survive. Of course that would require that the two were gentically compatible, and when and where could that have happened along the unknown evolutionary tree. Even just a very limited genetic co-mingling may have become a very significant part of human history, sort of like a pre-historic "Adam & Eve" maybe.
This could tend to lend a greater degree of evolutionary truth to the Bible story, wouldn't it?
For example, somewhat similar to what happened in ancient Europe when different cultures formed hybreds, like between the Angles and Saxons in Britain which then emerged as the Anglo-Saxons, or when groups (including Greek) in Italy merged with the Etruscans to later become Romans.
Quote:
Genetic evidence
A team of geneticists from different universities in Italy and Spain undertook the first genetic studies of the ancient Etruscans, based on mitochondrial DNA from 80 bone samples taken from tombs dating from the seventh century to the third century BC in Etruria.[17] This study finds that they were more related to each other than to the general population of modern Italy.
Moreover, this pool contained between about 150,000 to 200,000 women. Dividing these numbers by the 36 cities in the three Etruscan leagues obtains an average of between 4167 and 6944 women per community. Selecting an arbitrary family size of four gives a most approximate Etruscan population of 600,000 to 800,000 persons in about 36 communities of an average between 16,668 and 27,776 persons each. These populations are sufficiently dense and sufficiently urban to have accomplished everything the Etruscans were supposed to have accomplished.
The study has also shown that there is a link between Etruscans and certain populations of Anatolia. In particular, the areas of historical Etruscan occupation share a relatively high concentration of y-haplogroup G with Anatolians. This evidence is not specific to any period or calendar date; the time of a contiguous population or significant migration might be far back in the stone age.
Another team of Italian researchers has shown that the mtDNA of cattle (Bos taurus) in modern Tuscany is different from that of cattle normally found in Italy, and even in Europe as a whole.[18] Their mtDNA is, in fact, similar to that of cattle typically found in the Near East. Many tribes who have migrated in the past have typically taken their livestock with them as they moved. This bovine mtDNA study suggests that at least some people whose descendants were Etruscans did in fact make their way to Italy from Anatolia (Turkey) or other parts of the Near East. The study gives no clue as to when they might have done so.
It doesn't really make a difference to me. However, I do love the fact that when given the same forms of coming to a conclusion on a basis such as this creationists are so quick to jump on it, yet if we use the same methods to prove evolution they quickly deny it. Science isn't something you can just pick and choose a time to believe in it and only certain parts of it.
It doesn't really make a difference to me. However, I do love the fact that when given the same forms of coming to a conclusion on a basis such as this creationists are so quick to jump on it, yet if we use the same methods to prove evolution they quickly deny it. Science isn't something you can just pick and choose a time to believe in it and only certain parts of it.
Jazzed, I don't want to get into a giant discussion over proof and non-proof. I think you know as well as I do about the theories of proof and non-proof. You cannot prove that anything exists, however you can surely give it a very positive chance of being true or non-true based on the evidence at hand. I'm surprised you asked this question since we have discussed it much during the book challenge, but for the same reasons I cannot disprove there is a teapot flying around Mars you cannot prove it either.
However, my point was that I find it amazingly comical that creationists will refute something like carbon dating until it actually proves their point. For example: In the article it reads that a skull of a homo erectus was found in the same time period (or dated to be) as this new skull that they found. All of a sudden carbon dating, for creationists, MUST be true. They accept that. Oh woohoo we beat the scientists and science did it for us! Yes, we accept carbon dating is true, because that means your premise is false! Well, who's filling gaps now? That is what I meant by picking and choosing your premise of science.
Noooooo... don't start this again! (sorry, couldn't resist )
Quote:
Originally Posted by GCSTroop
It doesn't really make a difference to me. However, I do love the fact that when given the same forms of coming to a conclusion on a basis such as this creationists are so quick to jump on it, yet if we use the same methods to prove evolution they quickly deny it. Science isn't something you can just pick and choose a time to believe in it and only certain parts of it.
In my above post, I said nothing about believing any part of the article. There's lots of points on which I disagree with the article, age just being one of them. It just fascinates me that these scientists are now implying these two distinctly labeled species lived at the same time and might not be a descendant of one another. To me, in my eyes, the article can be seen to support what I believe .. that humans were always humans. It's still early in their research anyway, so of course things may change...That's science .
Jazzed, I don't want to get into a giant discussion over proof and non-proof. I think you know as well as I do about the theories of proof and non-proof. You cannot prove that anything exists, however you can surely give it a very positive chance of being true or non-true based on the evidence at hand. I'm surprised you asked this question since we have discussed it much during the book challenge, but for the same reasons I cannot disprove there is a teapot flying around Mars you cannot prove it either.
However, my point was that I find it amazingly comical that creationists will refute something like carbon dating until it actually proves their point. For example: In the article it reads that a skull of a homo erectus was found in the same time period (or dated to be) as this new skull that they found. All of a sudden carbon dating, for creationists, MUST be true. They accept that. Oh woohoo we beat the scientists and science did it for us! Yes, we accept carbon dating is true, because that means your premise is false! Well, who's filling gaps now? That is what I meant by picking and choosing your premise of science.
Hmm...I didn't think about it that way. I took the view that since scientists use carbon dating...here is an example where using that same method things don't line up. The fact that carbon dating is or is not accurate is not the point here...I think. The point is that using that method doesn't line up with evolution. In fact, maybe this is just more evidence that carbon dating is inaccurate after all.
Just my thoughts.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.