New human species identified from Kenya fossils

[Sky]

The research adds to a growing body of evidence that runs counter to the popular perception that there was a linear evolution from early primates to modern humans.


"Nature was developing different human prototypes only one of which, our species, was ultimately successful”- Professor Chris Stringer Natural History Museum, London

The finds back the view that a skull found in 1972 is of a separate species of human, known as Homo rudolfensis. The skull was markedly different to any others from that time. It had a relatively large brain and long flat face.

With the discovery of the three new fossils researchers can say with more certainty that H.rudolfensis really was a separate type of human that existed around two million years ago alongside other species of humans.

So after all that, it seems that we did not only evolve from primates!!!!!!

Should we add birds to the mix????? Sorry, we have tailbones, so that should be fish not birds. But I think this was established already.

How about elephants?

I agree with Bizzarre. Creationism is much more stable and consistent and does not fluctuate with every new piece of bone found!

Yes, zero is always more constant than addition of numbers.
Funny how you fill the other thread with evidence to try and support your BELIEFS, yet you dispel this evidence. Please stay in the other thread. And don't side with Bizzare He's asking a legitimate question which can be answered in time.

[TonyM]

There is no scientific evidence of creationism.

atheist1.jpg (24.31 KiB) Viewed 2292 times

[Computerman]

Creationism is much more stable and consistent and does not fluctuate with every new piece of bone found!

That is the most ignorant statement I have had the displeasure to read in support of creationism!

[Yodins]

so 1 more piece of evidence tht proves we all came from monkeys?

not really, but it shows more evidence that we had a common ancestor

same thing

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

so 1 more piece of evidence tht proves we all came from monkeys?

not really, but it shows more evidence that we had a common ancestor

same thing

how is that the same thing?

we share very similar DNA

in fact in June 2012, scientists researched the DNA of bonobos

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-18430420

Bonobos (Pan paniscus), together with chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes), are the closest living relatives of humans.

If one compares the DNA "letters" in the sequences of all three species, there is only a 1.3% difference between humans and their ape cousins.

The separation between the bonobo and the chimp is smaller still. Only four letters in every thousand is changed.

"Based on the differences that we observe between the genomes, one can actually estimate when the last common ancestor between these species lived," explained MPI's Kay Prufer.

"And between chimpanzees and bonobos that is maybe a million years in the past. For the chimps, bonobos, and humans - the common ancestor of all three lived somewhere around four to five million years ago," he told the BBC's Science In Action programme.

[DSM_05]

Duane, why bother going through the motions of proving/supporting the document?

It's fairly obvious as to why anyone with a clear thinking head, and an open-minded one at that, will see the logic and sense in evolution.

If people find that "creatonism" (in the purely literal sense as printed in holy text or whatever) is more plausible....then hey, I highly doubt that explaining this to them will make any difference to that kind of thinking.

I'd go as far as to say that they may not even see it possible that there could be a divine "influence" to spark evolution (if we want to be adventurous in thinking).

For those who think in simple-minded terms, it could only be one or the other. And as such, a belief in evolution, to them, means that they don't believe in God (which is silly! why should one influence the other?). Hence, they shun the concept.

Bottom line: no matter what you say, people will still believe what they want.

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

^ I'm not trying to convert anyone or force a viewpoint on them

I can only post facts and promote discussion with valid arguments

What is the use of discussion if we dont hear different sides?
What I post is more for the fence sitters than the ones wearing the blinkers.

[sMASH]

to me, science is like the mechanism and the phrases from the religious texts are like the sensational headlines.

blue, if u think about caanan with goliath an ting. could it not be explained that the caananites were brutish and giant because they were a predecessor for the humans we have today? they may have been less evolved and less civilized. they even have been not a predecessor but from another line of descendents.

i am not saying that it is, i am just saying it is a possibility.

and i am amazed every time a scientist find another fossil, because they are relying on things surviving decay and decomposition long after it would reasonably disappear. so, to find evidence relies heavily on the chance that a bone did not decay and was preserved, or a building did not just crumble but was left intact despite the environment.

[Computerman]

so, to find evidence relies heavily on the chance that a bone did not decay and was preserved, or a building did not just crumble but was left intact despite the environment.

That is truly a miracle!

[sMASH]

correction: i used the term 'fossil' wrongly. but even fossils are generated against significant odds.

[Razkal]

i think i gonna start teaching free classes on the theory of evolution.
half of modern medicine is based on the fact that we understand micro and macro evolution, the beauty of the idea lies in it's simplicity, not even einstein's theories come close to such a parsimonious explanation for such overwhelming complexity.


seriously, i have free time on Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Sunday evenings. I am willing to teach anyone willing to learn...and yes i know my sheit.

[TrinbagoMan]

Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

blue, if u think about caanan with goliath an ting. could it not be explained that the caananites were brutish and giant because they were a predecessor for the humans we have today? they may have been less evolved and less civilized. they even have been not a predecessor but from another line of descendents.

except the time frames you are referring to have no evidence, fossils, artifacts or otherwise to suggest they were giants or that giants co-existed with what we know as humans.

we should not speculate

[sensiman]

I honestly don't know why some of you even bother to respond to those who don't even understand the basics of scientific methods much less how evolution works, or worse yet not even willing to learn. They are not even aware of their own ignorance and often assume others are ignorant of what they know.

This is a fantastic discovery!

[Ted_v2]

i think i gonna start teaching free classes on the theory of evolution.
half of modern medicine is based on the fact that we understand micro and macro evolution, the beauty of the idea lies in it's simplicity, not even einstein's theories come close to such a parsimonious explanation for such overwhelming complexity.


seriously, i have free time on Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Sunday evenings. I am willing to teach anyone willing to learn...and yes i know my sheit.

somebody pass for me na i wanna go

[sMASH]

the co-existence of multiple lines of evolution is not that absurd. the timing for the exact points in time for the events in bible/quran is not a definite thing or at least definitely stated.

u say speculation, i say imagination....




at the end of the day, we know about a guy who'd say aliens...

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

^ co-existence was proven - I'm not arguing that

I'm saying that there is no evidence of modern humans co-existing with homo erectus from 500,000 years ago

where do you draw the line with imagination though?

[sMASH]

when there is enough to say that it can't go that way, and most times when i speak. this was not one of those times.

what it is, some of the old ruins showing that it required a lot of man hours of work. in the present times men are able to erect such great constructions with so little time. all kinda two years and less for massive projects to done. in the past things would have taken a lot longer, and the further back u go, the longer things would take. the technology would not allow things to go quickly, the resources would not be so easily obtained, the sustenance of the work force would be a feat itself even it it was available.
then there was disease, wars, environmental conditions, natural disasters, all working together to make the efforts harder for even normal projects. as u go back in time, the effects get increasingly effective.
many people, rightly so or not, believe that many things are a lot older than they are. i am thinking that things would be taking a lot longer to build than we estimate, and the older they are the longer they would take. even the work force may not have been as great as we might think. things may have taken even a few generations to be built.

if we assume things are older, and took longer, then culture and stories may have been older. things in cultures may have been learned from other cultures and assimilated.

yes, i agree no evidence or not much is there, but there may not be available due to circumstances beyond our control. just like the standard model or the periodic table, just because it ain't there, doesn't mean that it not supposed to, especially if the other facts point in a direction.

[bluefete]

blue, if u think about caanan with goliath an ting. could it not be explained that the caananites were brutish and giant because they were a predecessor for the humans we have today? they may have been less evolved and less civilized. they even have been not a predecessor but from another line of descendents.

except the time frames you are referring to have no evidence, fossils, artifacts or otherwise to suggest they were giants or that giants co-existed with what we know as humans.

we should not speculate

The evidence has not been found as yet (or is hidden for obvious reasons). There was no evidence that Pontius Pilate ever existed until 1961.

The existence of giants was explained by the mating of fallen angels with human women. There were giants in ancient Israel and the stats were given for Goliath.

Duane once explained in the other thread that very tall people are a product of cells gone awry.

[Sky]

^^ What would be these obvious reasons?

[bluefete]

Duane, why bother going through the motions of proving/supporting the document?

It's fairly obvious as to why anyone with a clear thinking head, and an open-minded one at that, will see the logic and sense in evolution.

If people find that "creatonism" (in the purely literal sense as printed in holy text or whatever) is more plausible....then hey, I highly doubt that explaining this to them will make any difference to that kind of thinking.

I'd go as far as to say that they may not even see it possible that there could be a divine "influence" to spark evolution (if we want to be adventurous in thinking).

For those who think in simple-minded terms, it could only be one or the other. And as such, a belief in evolution, to them, means that they don't believe in God (which is silly! why should one influence the other?). Hence, they shun the concept.

Bottom line: no matter what you say, people will still believe what they want.

DSM: Evolution as a scientific concept is quite easy to believe. If you go right back to the Big Bang (which is where evolution started - not so?), the ancient question still arises:

What caused it?

What was the spark? God? Did the non-existent universe made itself out of nothing?

[Humes]

So after all that, it seems that we did not only evolve from primates!!!!!!

That's not what the quote states. Pray for some comprehension skills.

The findings suggest (and this is nothing new) that there were several different primitive human or human-like species that might have co-existed, and possibly even eradicated each other or interbred. But those different species evolved from primate ancestors...that aspect hasn't changed.

It replaces the earlier interpretation of the evidence that concluded that there was just one evolutionary path that led a primitive primate to modern humanity.

(Now bookmark this comment and watch how bluefete, even after receiving an explanation, will bring up his same ignorant point in the religion thread three times again before the end of the year...)

[Bizzare]

If you don't believe in creationism, please tell me about the beginning of evolution.
If you're gonna mention "big bang" don't even bother.

[Humes]

If you go right back to the Big Bang (which is where evolution started - not so?)

No.

Evolution didn't begin with the Big Bang.

You're talking rubbish. Go read and educate yourself.

[bluefete]

So after all that, it seems that we did not only evolve from primates!!!!!!

That's not what the quote states. Pray for some comprehension skills.

The findings suggest (and this is nothing new) that there were several different primitive human or human-like species that might have co-existed, and possibly even eradicated each other or interbred. But those different species evolved from primate ancestors...that aspect hasn't changed.

It replaces the earlier interpretation of the evidence that concluded that there was just one evolutionary path that led a primitive primate to modern humanity.

(Now bookmark this comment and watch how bluefete, even after receiving an explanation, will bring up his same ignorant point in the religion thread three times again before the end of the year...)

So the explanation is that we still came from the monkey family just a different genus!!

It would be interesting to find bones and then speculate/draw what these primate ancestors looked like (the new species, that is).

What science will do to disprove creation and God.

[bluefete]

If you go right back to the Big Bang (which is where evolution started - not so?)

No.

Evolution didn't begin with the Big Bang.

You're talking rubbish. Go read and educate yourself.

Listen here big man: Did we not evolve from something? Did the earth not form itself? Before the earth formed itself, what was it? A collection of dust and rocks in space? Are these part of the primordial stew? Did the universe not start with a big bang according to scientists? Then if that is its origins, it is clear that everything had to evolve from there. Not so? And out of all the planets and galaxies, we are the only life forms to coincidentally form/evolve on one planet. Thus there is no need for God. Right?

[bluefete]

If you don't believe in creationism, please tell me about the beginning of evolution.
If you're gonna mention "big bang" don't even bother.

Where did you get the impression that I don't believe in creationism?

[Humes]

So the explanation is that we still came from the monkey family just a different genus!!

I wonder if Jesus was a smug, disingenuous c**t. That would justify Christians being that way, since they're supposed to act like him.

But anyway, no, that's not what the explanation is. Firstly, it's the primate family, not the monkey family. We're still a part of that family. Grow up and get over it.

All primitive humans would have belonged to the same genus, homo. The only new suggestion is that there would have been multiple species within that genus.

[Sky]

And once again bluefete ignoring me because he can't answer my simple question.
Lemme ask a question and answer it one time.
Why do people ignore the truth, and feel satisfaction in saying "because an old book told me so" ?
Because they want some comfort in trying to convince themselves that something good will happen to them when they die

[Bizzare]

If you don't believe in creationism, please tell me about the beginning of evolution.
If you're gonna mention "big bang" don't even bother.

Where did you get the impression that I don't believe in creationism?

nah, that was a general question, directed to anyone who didn't believe in creationism.