Jump to content

'game Changer' In Evolution


SillyString
 Share

Recommended Posts

My (Christian) mother tried telling me about a story she had heard about a hand that had been found that supposedly showed evolution to be false. This caused a religious discussion between her and my stepfather about how this "fits in so well with Creationism". She didn't cite where she had heard this but I decided to investigate (of course). This is what I found, but it doesn't echo what she said. (Imagine that! Wendyshrug.gif)

 

110908_Australopithecus_Sediba_3.jpg

 

WASHINGTON (AP) — Two million-year-old bones belonging to a creature with both apelike and human traits provide the clearest evidence of evolution's first major step toward modern humans — findings some are calling a potential game-changer.

An analysis of the bones found in South Africa suggests Australopithecus sediba is the most likely candidate to be the ancestor of humans, said lead researcher Lee R. Berger of the University of Witwatersrand in South Africa.

 

The fossils, belonging to a male child and an adult female, show a novel combination of features, almost as though nature were experimenting. Some resemble pre-human creatures while others suggest the genus Homo, which includes Homo sapiens, modern people.

 

"It's as if evolution is caught in one vital moment, a stop-action snapshot of evolution in action," said Richard Potts, director of the human origins program at the Smithsonian Institution. He was not among the team, led by South African scientists, whose research was published online Thursday in the journal Science.

 

Scientists have long considered the Australopithecus family, which includes the famous fossil Lucy, to be a primitive candidate for a human ancestor. The new research establishes a creature that combines features of both groups.

 

The newly studied bones were found in 2008 in the fossil-rich cave region of Malapa near Johannesberg. Berger's then 9-year-old son, Matthew, found a bone that was determined to belong to the child. Two weeks later Berger uncovered the fossils of the female.

 

The journal published five papers detailing the findings, including separate reports on the foot, hand, pelvis and brain of A. sediba.

 

Berger said the brain, hand and foot have characteristics of both modern and early pre-human forms that show a transition under way. It represents a bona fide model that could lead to the human genus Homo, Berger said.

 

Kristian J. Carlson, also at Witwatersrand, said the brain of A. sediba is small, like that of a chimpanzee, but with a configuration more human, particularly with an expansion behind and above the eyes.

 

This seems to be evidence that the brain was reorganizing along more modern lines before it began its expansion to the current larger size, Carlson said in a teleconference.

 

"It will take a lot of scrutiny of the papers and of the fossils by more and more researchers over the coming months and years, but these analyses could well be 'game-changers' in understanding human evolution," according to the Smithsonian's Potts.

 

So, does all this mean A. sediba was the "missing link"?

 

Well, scientists don't like that term, which Berger calls "biologically unsound."

 

This is a good candidate to represent the evolution of humans, he said, but the earliest definitive example of Homo is 150,000 to 200,000 years younger.

 

Scientists prefer the terms "transition form" or "intermediary form," said Darryl J. DeRuiter of Texas A&M University.

 

"This is what evolutionary theory would predict, this mixture of Australopithecene and Homo," DeRuiter said. "It's strong confirmation of evolutionary theory."

 

But it's not yet an example of the genus Homo, he said, though it could have led to several early human forms, including Homo habilis, Homo rudolfensis or Homo erectus — all considered early distant cousins to man, Homo sapiens.

 

These articles "force a rethinking of how traits are coupled together in human evolution," the Smithsonian's Potts said in an email from Kenya, where he is doing research.

 

"For example, in previous definitions of our genus, the leading edge in the emergence of Homo has been brain enlargement. The sediba bones show, however, that reorganization of the brain and pelvis typically connected with the evolution of Homo need not have involved brain enlargement," he noted.

 

"The more we learn about human evolution, the more we see that traits" that must have happened together could occur separately, Potts said.

 

http://www.chron.com...nes-2160637.php

 

And the published paper here:

 

http://www.sciencema...8/1411.abstract

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As if we needed more confirmation that evolution has occurred. From long experience with my stepdad, I think it's best to ignore Creationist's arguments. I think engaging them lends them credibility as opponents. And they have none.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As if we needed more confirmation that evolution has occurred. From long experience with my stepdad, I think it's best to ignore Creationist's arguments. I think engaging them lends them credibility as opponents. And they have none.

 

 

Oh I didn't engage, just listened. I've made it a point not to say anything unless I'm asked directly.

 

I didn't expect to find some evidence for Creationism either, I was just curious as to exactly what story she was referring to. Just goes to show you how people will use what they "hear" in their arguments without doing any actual research.

 

 

What she heard as being some kind of evidence for ID is actually just more evidence for evolution. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

World's best evidence against evolution can be found

.

 

If I ever have to watch that stupid video again it will be too soon.

 

Can we all mutually agree to put a WARNING message whenever linking to a Kirk Cameron or Ray Comfort video? I seriously fucking lose brain cells whenever I hear either one of them speak.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fascinating story. I can't help but have the attitude that it's a fake because it IS almost the textbook case for intermediary forms.

 

I think whenever Creationists see statements like " These articles "force a rethinking . . . " they read "Evolution has been disproved and creationism has been proven. . ."

 

It's the "final authority" text-based thinking they have that trips them up. They think that because they base their thinking on an ancient, "final" canon everybody must therefore have a final text upon which they base their lives. But that is not how science works. With science, "re-thinking" is the name of the game. Every few years long held assumptions are shaken and people's thinking has to adjust to new facts. Creationists are frozen in time - in a textual phantom zone called the Bible. They can't handle this.

 

That, plus nobody likes to have their worldview challenged.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My (Christian) mother tried telling me about a story she had heard about a hand that had been found that supposedly showed evolution to be false.

If these findings are correct, then it strengthens the theory of evolution, not weakens it. It's funny to see that any new thing anthropologists find is deemed evidence against evolution by creationists, only because they have no clue what evolution is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

christian arrogance on evolution can be astounding i rember a few years back in high shcool we were discusing "lucy" you know the homoerectus (i think) every one in class was saying stuff like

 

"how do they know its not just a little girl that got lost in the forest."

 

"they have no proof this even exist".

 

i just rolled my eyes and went back to reading the text book to actualy learn somthing.

 

my bio teacher was a creationist so she ddint even try to explain the ideas of dating methods (and she definatly knew them). just let them live in arogance on purpose.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

christian arrogance on evolution can be astounding i rember a few years back in high shcool we were discusing "lucy" you know the homoerectus (i think) every one in class was saying stuff like

 

"how do they know its not just a little girl that got lost in the forest."

 

"they have no proof this even exist".

 

i just rolled my eyes and went back to reading the text book to actualy learn somthing.

 

my bio teacher was a creationist so she ddint even try to explain the ideas of dating methods (and she definatly knew them). just let them live in arogance on purpose.

You can tell Lucy's age from dentition, wearing, epiphyseal fusion, and much more. Age shows in bones. Bones tell a story. The dental formula and other things show relation to apes. Foramen magnum shows bipedalism. And so on...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can tell Lucy's age from dentition, wearing, epiphyseal fusion, and much more. Age shows in bones. Bones tell a story. The dental formula and other things show relation to apes. Foramen magnum shows bipedalism. And so on...

 

That's all well and good but show me where the Bible says how to interpret these findings.

It doesn't.

So therefore its false. :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can tell Lucy's age from dentition, wearing, epiphyseal fusion, and much more. Age shows in bones. Bones tell a story. The dental formula and other things show relation to apes. Foramen magnum shows bipedalism. And so on...

 

That's all well and good but show me where the Bible says how to interpret these findings.

It doesn't.

So therefore its false. :P

Yeah. The Babble is always right! Because it says so. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.