Scientists discover foot of possible new human ancestor
March 28th, 2012
08:04 PM ET

Scientists discover foot of possible new human ancestor

The discovery of a partial foot fossil in Ethiopia suggests that our human ancestors were possibly an occasional tree-climber and an occasional upright walker.

In a search for additional clues on how and when our ancestors stopped climbing trees and started walking on two feet, scientists went to the central Afar region in Ethiopia. It’s home to some of the world's richest fossil and artifact sites, including the famous Hadar site. “Lucy,” the partial ape-human skeleton, was excavated at Hadar in 1974.

About 30 miles north of Hadar in 2009, scientists excavated a surprising set of foot bones at the Burtele palaeontological site.  Scientists spent the next three years analyzing their findings before reaching a moment of eureka.

Who are the "Red Deer Cave" people?

“For the first time, we have good evidence that there is indeed another hominin lineage that lived at the same time as Lucy’s species,” study co-author Bruce Latimer said in a scientific news briefing. He is an anthropologist at Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland.

The fossils of the partial foot of the early hominin include eight bones, all from the right forefoot. They were discovered in fossil-rich deposits dated to 3.4 million years ago. That makes it roughly the same age as Lucy and her species, Australopithecus afarensis.

“Scientists have long-argued about whether there was only one species or more than one species, particularly between the time three to four million years ago," said Yohannes Haile-Selassie, lead author of the study and curator and head of Physical Anthropology at Case Western.

"Once walking on two legs – bipedality - evolved, that was how our limit was characterized.  We never expected another related species running around with capabilities to climb up trees at the same time,” said Haile-Selassie.

The fossils’ discoverers say Lucy's species did not climb trees. They had feet much like modern humans and had a big toe that was curved at the top, allowing the toes to hyperextend to "help push off" at the end of each step.

Ancient fossils question human family tree

Markings on the new Burtele foot indicate that like Lucy's species, it had the ability to walk upright but did not have much joint mobility. The key difference is in the big toe. The Burtele foot lacks the large spherical ends at the big toe and instead has a short, divergent big toe, like a chimp, also making it a part-time grasper and climber.

“What we have now is a creature that has a different mode of locomotion from Lucy,” said Haile-Selassie. “This clearly demonstrates that our evolution was not characterized by a single linage evolving through time. There were also others living in the Afar region at the same time.”

Their findings of the study were released Wednesday in the journal Nature.

Scientists say analysis of the physical and sedimentary chemical characteristics of the rock strata show that the environment was aquatic, surrounded by woods along the shores.

“This is just another window into solving the problem of how we got from a primitive foot to the modern human foot,” said Latimer.

To shine more light into that window, scientists are putting one foot in front of the other, saying more fossil evidence is needed before they can draw definitive conclusions on whether the Burtele foot bones represent a new species of hominin.

“This is the first time we’ve had these particular elements that we can start looking at and comparing them. This allows us to tease out what the sequence is in creating a hominin foot,” said Latimer.

For now, this ancient foot only adds more evidence to the understanding that scientists hope will bring us one step closer to unlocking the mysteries of our ancestral past.

Follow @CNNLightYears on Twitter

Post by:
Filed under: Human ancestors • News
soundoff (401 Responses)
  1. MrJay11

    this is how the insane Darwinists... who will do or say anything to make sure no one believes in Creationism... make up crap.

    really a bone. how about a monkey bone. as they have been around as long as humans have according to you and other like you. shouldn't they at least be capable of ..... i don;t know,.. rudamentary speech or light housekeeping at this point...? i mean if evolution works after 60 million stinin years all we get is poop throwing and but smelling... it's time to give Darwinism a much needed break. these 'theoretical scientists' are full of Actual crap

    April 7, 2012 at 5:54 pm |
  2. optical mirror

    I just couldn't go away your website prior to suggesting that I really loved the standard information a person provide on your guests? Is going to be again frequently to investigate cross-check new posts

    April 6, 2012 at 3:06 am |
  3. (2012 phenomenon|2012 theories|end of the world theories)

    I'm really inspired with your writing skills and also with the format on your weblog. Is that this a paid topic or did you customize it yourself? Anyway keep up the excellent high quality writing, it's rare to peer a great weblog like this one nowadays..

    April 4, 2012 at 6:34 pm |
  4. namastu

    Awesome ..

    http://www.namastu.com

    April 3, 2012 at 8:55 am |
  5. vince

    WOW we are going places now rofl } our human ancestors were possibly an occasional tree-climber and an occasional upright walker. { my kid is still a tree climber, and as for the time spent not walking upright, we call that sleep or bed time, ask them folks who think we came from monkey,s why did the rest of the monkey,s evolve as we did into humans, roflmao maybe they had insight and saw what we became ans did not want nothing to do with it. GET the MONKEY,S to talk ILL LISTEN .

    March 30, 2012 at 10:44 am |
    • Primewonk

      Why doo people who purposefully choose to be ignorant about science come onto science threads and demonstrate that ignorance?

      Any chance you can show us where in the science literature it says we come from monkeys? Is there any specific reason you lack the cognitive ability to understand that humans and monkeys shared a common ancestor 25 million years ago?

      March 30, 2012 at 2:43 pm |
    • Ryan

      why is it important? Because it's another puzzle to the evolutionary time table. I hope your tree-climbing-kid wont be as ignorant as you.

      April 3, 2012 at 3:55 pm |
    • Starrman

      Vince, you're an a**hole!!!!

      April 3, 2012 at 8:35 pm |
    • fimeilleur

      Vince,

      I'll dumb it down for you:
      Your child is the product of you and your wife, it may also have siblings. You are the product of your mother and father. You may have brothers or sisters. Your father was the product of your grandparents... he may have had brothers or sisters. Your argument boils down to this point: If your child is a descentent of your grandfather, then why is your uncle still alive?

      Just so you know, I typed this really slow, 'cause I know you can't read too fast.

      April 3, 2012 at 9:14 pm |
  6. DAVU

    just wondering! if we come from evlolution shouldn't we have to see a monkey in process to be a human. who said monkeys should be moneky always... they need change

    March 30, 2012 at 2:33 am |
    • Primewonk

      Humans did not come from monkeys. No one with even a junior high grasp of science thinks this. Humans and monkeys share a common ancester from about 25 million years ago.

      March 30, 2012 at 8:34 am |
  7. Calvin

    I dont see why science and religion should fight. I know religious scientist and religious people who loves science. Just take it as 2 different stuff. A scientist takes a theory and proof it right but when it comes to religion, it takes a leap of faith to do so. Stop arguing like babies...unless, theorically...you are...!

    March 29, 2012 at 7:41 pm |
  8. UDontSay

    I guess we all have a right to believe as we wish.I pick Christ over all,no religion for me.Call me silly,stupid,dumb,whatever you like.I don't believe in Him,I know He lives!God bless you all and your ideas!:)

    March 29, 2012 at 5:52 pm |
  9. GC

    http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v483/n7391/full/nature10922.html

    March 29, 2012 at 12:36 pm |
  10. donnybravo

    i am much more interested in man's destination rather than origination.that is applicable.

    March 29, 2012 at 11:39 am |
    • DP

      Believers to "Heaven" & Non.. to "HELL".

      refer to any GREAT books written... I mean Bible, Koran & Bhagwat Gita !!

      March 29, 2012 at 2:44 pm |
  11. Rob

    What makes them think this is a hominid bone? DNA, the size, the shape the level underground in which it is found. Unless it is DNA, all of the other's would just be speculation. Science is just based on evidence and scrutiny until more evidence is found that doesn't not support the original conclusion. Of course boiling hot water will burn your skin, so you could call that a scientific fact. Whether or not there is other life sustaining planets cannot be scientific fact until they are visited by us or our robots. I think you can find that the truths we cling to depend greatly on your point of view. Sorry for the Obi wan quote there but it makes allot of since. So unless you are telling me that this bond has human DNA, good luck getting me to believe it. Religion and science should go hand in hand, and not be in conflict. It is when people try to use science to say religion is wrong that makes people upset and for good reason. Think about this, recent discoveries have shown that man was sea diving 250 years before written history tells us. Also, it has been discovered that chemical warfare was used in ancient times. We actually know very little about our planet, our history and the universe. So acting like its science or religion or that someone’s beliefs are foolish, is ignorance on your part, BIGTIME!

    March 29, 2012 at 10:26 am |
    • G

      Thank you haha

      March 29, 2012 at 10:30 am |
    • Josh

      So, it's not okay for science to call religion wrong. Got it.
      It's okay for religion to call science wrong? Does not compute.

      Whether or not our desire is for religion and science to go "hand-in-hand," is irrelevant to what is ACTUALLY being discovered. Faith is the substance of things hoped for– the evidence of things unseen. (Hebrews 11), but Science works with actual evidence- devoid of hopes. Scientists look at what exists. It's saddening that it upsets you.

      March 29, 2012 at 10:41 am |
      • Rob

        Such a wonderful thing the internet. Very hard to tell what a person means when they make a post. I said that is what upsets people. I believe science and religion go hand and hand. Also, it does not make me upset, I said that is what makes people upset. This idea that science is all knowing and proves everything beyond a shadow of doubt is the biggest load of cr-p yet. Many great scientists have been religious as well and did not see the conflict that so many believe today. Also, someone religious beliefs also come from their experiences and what they have seen as well as what they read or hear. If you see someone be healed by prayer, you may believe it as fact. Others may believe it was just something else; even if a Dr. tells you there is no other explanation. So to say that someone’s religion is completely based on ideas is false. To say that science is based on all facts is false as well. "Science works with actual evidence- devoid of hopes" You couldn't be more wrong. Do know anything about science? Science looks at what can be seen, felt, heard, touched, recorded, etc. Science then comes up with a theory (hope) of what it means. Then try to prove the theory. Sometimes, science believes a theory has been proven as fact, only to find out later that missing evidence caused the theory to be wrong. Science and religion are not mutually exclusive. If we found the Ark would you believe in the Noah story? Probably not, some would believe, some would say it was not Noah, some would say that the evidence was fake; some would say Aliens put it there. So idea that religion is some silly hope dream, and science is all facts is just a flat out lie. No matter how you feel about either one.

        March 29, 2012 at 11:16 am |
      • Primewonk

        Rob wrote, " Science looks at what can be seen, felt, heard, touched, recorded, etc. Science then comes up with a theory (hope) of what it means. Then try to prove the theory. Sometimes, science believes a theory has been proven as fact, only to find out later that missing evidence caused the theory to be wrong. "

        No. Yet again, in science we don't prove things, we explain things. In science, we come up with a hypothesis, and seek facts/evidence to either support/confirm the hypothesis, or we seek to show it is wrong. When we have sufficient evidence to support it, and it has been replicated by others, it becomes a theory. A theory is an agreed upon best explanation for sets of facts, laws, observations, predictions, etc.

        You also wrote, " If we found the Ark would you believe in the Noah story?" No. Unless you can explain away the thousands of inconsistencies with a global flood 4000 years ago. For instance a global flood 4000 years ago that killed everyone everything not on the boat, would have left population bottlenecks in the DNA of every single species on earth. Yet there is zero evidence for this.

        March 29, 2012 at 1:16 pm |
      • rico

        if u think u evolved from a monkey ...next time u go to the zoo hug and kiss your ancesters in the gorilla cage!

        May 8, 2012 at 10:30 pm |
    • Rob Is Dumb

      "Think about this, recent discoveries have shown that man was sea diving 250 years before written history tells us. Also, it has been discovered that chemical warfare was used in ancient times"

      What does this have to do with anything at all? This isn't interesting information, it's well known information. Religion is a crock of crap. There has been no proof of any god or gods out there. None. not one ounce of proof. There are billions and billions of potential planets out there that could support life based on the amount of stars. Through that type of conclusion you can come to a really good guess that life must exist on one of those planets. Statistical laws allow for those type of assumptions. There has been no evidence of any type of god or supernatural beings out there on this planet or any others. Therefore your arguement that religion and science somehow should go hand in hand is nonsense.

      That's like saying oil and water mix. They absolutely do not and will never.

      March 29, 2012 at 11:32 am |
      • Rob

        You must be such and intelligent person to come up with such a great name. Did you think that up all by yourself or did you need help. Maybe your elementary teacher should not let you play on the internet during playtime.
        The reason for bring that up is that a very short time ago, it would be considered facts which were proved to be wrong. When I was a kid, scientists would say there is no such thing is anti matter. Now we have captured it. Many believed that there was never life on Mars, now we know that there was water at one point and time. So what people and science believe as fact, could change in a moment.
        "There has been no evidence of any type of god or supernatural beings out there on this planet or any others." Not true. I have seen evidence in my life but if I share it with you, you would just believe there was some other reason. Are you afraid that science may prove the existence of a creator?
        Since we can't even understand the knowledge that ancient man had and has been lost. How can you make this leap that Religion is false? Maybe you can enlighten us with your knowledge of all space and time. Oh great one. Can we worship you? You must be a God.

        March 29, 2012 at 11:48 am |
      • DP

        ..................Just like you and Society

        March 29, 2012 at 2:47 pm |
      • David A. D. Forna

        Rob you are not a Dumb.All you said is true. One thing I can only say is;Any one who dont belive that there is A GOD,the day will come when he or she will belive.

        March 29, 2012 at 3:36 pm |
      • Name*joshua

        D crux of dis matter is evolution. Do u believe u were formed from non living thing like methane if so how do the elements dat fill our environment wat was probably d first tin in existence how does it come about what / who fashioned it have u ever thought of d planet earth who drew d plan God is d author of everytin look deep inside of u u will see HIM

        March 29, 2012 at 4:50 pm |
      • David A. D. Forna

        You said there have being no prufs of GOD? Yes there is a pruf, the pruf is JESUS the LORD GOD came down in the human form to save me and you from the sin that seprete us from GOD HIM self.Beleve it or leave it:a dog is a dog since creation,a fisch is a fisch,Human is Human.

        March 30, 2012 at 11:46 am |
      • fimeilleur

        David A.D. Forna,

        Just a little history lesson for you... Dog breeds are man made... domesticated from wolves. I recommend an education before posting on a science forum.

        May God B-Less to you.

        April 3, 2012 at 9:23 pm |
      • Taroya

        Until you can learn to spell, I don't believe ANYTHING you say. You just aren't that bright.

        In addition, for all of you religious fanatics, try this on for size:

        You claim GOD made the earth, the universe, and everything else.

        So, WHY do you constantly to disrespect all of His creations? You think that this omnipotent, omniscient being couldn't have created molecules, amino acids, DNA, RNA and then caused them all to work together to become what you see around you today?

        Really?

        WHY do you think that He DIDN'T do all that?

        Mankind thinks. We discover things. We learn. According to you, WE WERE ALL MADE IN HIS IMAGE.

        So, taking a look at your behavior(s), I have to conclude that either you are 1. Incredibly stupid or 2. Very afraid of things you don't understand, or 3. You hate this god that you profess to believe in, or 4. You don't actually believe that there is a god to begin with, and it is nothing more than lip service.

        April 6, 2012 at 12:22 pm |
    • DPatriot

      In a search for additional clues on how and when our ancestors stopped climbing trees and started walking on two feet, scientists went to the central Afar region in Ethiopia...............When did we stop climbing trees?

      March 29, 2012 at 2:52 pm |
      • realabesha

        lol

        March 29, 2012 at 3:13 pm |
    • angela

      if it weren't for science, you or anyone else wouldnt have those medications on the shelves or doctor prescribing to us. some ppl just want to believe in adam and eve whatever else and thats it. they cant or dont want to open their minds to the fact that the way things are portrayed in the bible might be wrong. plus who can trust a book that has been re-written many times. i'm just sayin'

      March 29, 2012 at 3:16 pm |
      • G

        The medications that kill people daily? While the plants God has given us such as cannabis has never killed a soul. The bible has not been re written many times fyi. Way back when they had people who took certain books of the bible and had to copy it and memorize it and if they misspelled a word or messed up they had to start over even if you were on your last word. This was a job some had thousands of years ago. Bet you can't guess why they had these jobs.....to make sure it was all the same and these people were very educated they weren't just nimrods off the street. They've dug up old scriptures from thousands and thousands of years ago and guess what? They say the same thing haha amazing ain't it? If you mean re written you're sort of right because there are different translations, I also forgot that the bible has been translated into over 2000 different languages. Its also the best selling book in the world. Just saying, so next time you want to make up some bs at leat you know the truth now instead of being misled

        March 29, 2012 at 11:37 pm |
  12. Primewonk

    In science we don't "prove" things, we explain things. Proofs are for maths and ethanol. In science, theory is as high as it gets. Theories can be proposed, confirmed, modified, or falsified. That's it. A theory never gets "promoted" to fact or law. Theories exist to explain sets of facts and laws.

    The theory of evolution is 150 years old. In that time it has never been falsified. Not even close. It has been modified over time as we gather new evidence and facts. It is not Darwinism. The theory of evolutionis the single most confirmed theory in all of science. The folks who study gravity wish they had 1/10th the amount of evidence for their theory as the folks who study evolution.

    March 29, 2012 at 10:03 am |
    • Rob

      It has been proven that we have evolved and all species do. It has never been proven that we evolved from apes. Actually there is such a quantum leap between the two (missing link) that science can only wonder how that would be possible. So to say a current human evolved to this point is correct. That we evolved from Apes has not been proven and I don't personally think it ever will be proven. We also don't know their intelligence. Recent discoveries have found magnificent cave paintings that show a level of detail, never believed possible during pre-historic time.

      March 29, 2012 at 10:37 am |
      • Josh

        I encourage you to see the evidence in the story above.

        March 29, 2012 at 10:43 am |
      • Primewonk

        Again, from my very first sentence – in science we do not prove things, we explain things.

        If you choose to be ignorant about science, why are you on here?

        March 29, 2012 at 11:11 am |
      • Rob

        Primewonk- many times it is just a possible explination, which many claim to be facts.

        March 29, 2012 at 11:35 am |
      • Primewonk

        Rob wrote, " It has never been proven that we evolved from apes".

        Again, this statement show the depths of your ignorance in this matter. You refuse to understand that in science we don't prove things, we explain things. This nnhas been explained to you many times.

        And, again, like you have been told hundreds of times, humans did not evolve from apes. Humans ARE members of the great ape family. We share common ancestery with the other great apes.

        Perhaps you can explain why you lack the cognitive ability to understand this.

        March 29, 2012 at 12:39 pm |
    • genecloner

      Keep on truckin', Primework! I admire your efforts to explain science to the incredibly ignorant. Every time I hear "Evolution is a theory, not a fact...." I cringe. OF COURSE evolution is not a fact – a theory never is a fact. A theory describes the relationships between facts. If new facts emerge which demonstrate that the theory is faulty, you change the theory.

      Gravity is a theory too – anyone want to try stepping off a skyscraper to test it??

      I've given up on trying to educate those who are determined to remain ignorant. But I salute your attempt!

      April 6, 2012 at 2:32 am |
  13. JPR1970

    Can we put this straight for some of the dimmer bulbs out her...

    Man did not evolve from Apes!

    Apes and man evolved from the same distant ancestors. This is a very big difference.

    March 29, 2012 at 9:51 am |
    • Lucy

      You've got a lot more work to do then that, if you expect to reach many of them here.

      March 29, 2012 at 9:54 am |
    • syz

      Yea, you are right. Lucy was not an ape.

      March 29, 2012 at 9:59 am |
  14. Rich

    Get a good southern education and believe your pastor....lol

    March 29, 2012 at 9:44 am |
  15. nogod

    I'm not sure if evolution is absolute fact or not but it is obvious that there were several humanoid species. Aside from Lucy and the current findings, they also found a "hobbit" size humanoid species recently. These species were all discovered and not just something we've been told about generation after generation with absolutely no evidence supporting it. There is absolutely no proof what-so-ever that there is a god. I'm dumb-founded by how ignorant people can truly be to believe in religion. There is quite a bit of evidence contradicting religious beliefs and no evidence supporting them. In fact, I found that religious people will flat out ignore the obvious and hard facts just because they contradict what they believe. Religion = Ignorance & Hate

    March 29, 2012 at 9:43 am |
  16. Primewonk

    Matt wrote, " the earth is slowly moving away from the sun. Scientists say this is because of the big bang theory, and proves this theory because it shows the earth is still moving and has been for millions of years since the "big bang"....."

    Seriously? You believe the earth was formed in the Big Bang? And you believe the earth is moving away from the sun? Where did you learn this??

    March 29, 2012 at 9:35 am |
    • greg

      I do feel very sorry for you. How sad to be so proud of your ignorance. Evolution is a scientifically proven fact and as for your idiotic statement that the sun and the earth are not moving apart, it makes me wonder why an idiot like you is posting on a science blog.

      March 29, 2012 at 9:51 am |
      • G

        And I feel for you since evolution is still only a theory. There is no way you can prove it. There's no way you can prove that God created the earth in 7days. How long is a day to God I don't know? But really why criticize?

        March 29, 2012 at 9:59 am |
      • Primewonk

        I was quoting what Matt wrote. That is why I wrote "Matt wrote..." Your problem is with Matt. Not me.

        March 29, 2012 at 10:12 am |
      • Nobel

        Scientific Blog? LOLLLL

        March 29, 2012 at 12:50 pm |
      • Ian

        @G:
        You clearly do not understand the difference between a scientific theory, (i.e, Gravity, Evolution, etc.) and the layman use of it. A scientific theory has lots of fact supporting it, and is easily provable and has not been falsified.

        April 1, 2012 at 8:21 pm |
    • I'm The Best!

      This confused me as well. I'm pretty sure earth's orbit is pretty well locked in place. And the earth has only been here for a few billion years (about 4 I think). I don't know where that guy was getting his info.

      March 29, 2012 at 9:53 am |
      • DP

        4 bil yrs.. YOU THINK!! (LOL)
        as to where he got the information.. He got a burst from outer space...... just like you THOUGHT...LOL

        March 29, 2012 at 2:54 pm |
    • Matt

      The whole idea of that post was to say the big bang is a dumb theory. its a magical we have no idea theory. the fact that money is being spent on the 'god particle' is dumb, unless it serves some sort of purpose but i don't know what that is. scientists say that finding it could lead to a 'big bang' like explosion and give answers, but still doesn't bring to light how the two particles came about that caused this. yes the earth is in orbit, but it is slowly moving away from the sun. i found this while doing a research paper years ago, and it wasn't wikipedia like some people have been using as thier source in these comments

      March 29, 2012 at 10:10 am |
      • Primewonk

        The Big Bang had nothing to do with the formation of the earth.

        We have valid science for the Big Bang going back to a couple femtoseconds after the expansion started.

        The earth-sun distance changes only a couple centimeters/year. This most likely a reflection of the mass of the sun changing s hydrogen fuses into helium.

        Try getting your science information from science sources instead of creationist sites.

        March 29, 2012 at 10:22 am |
      • I'm The Best!

        Your lack of understanding of the big bang theory as well as the higgs particle lead me to question your claim about the earth getting further from the sun. I've looked into a lot of science and even more into physics (even taken a few clawed on space-time physics) and never have I heard about the earth getting further from the sun.

        March 29, 2012 at 10:29 am |
      • Matt

        I will continue to believe in creation, you can continue to believe in science. But neither has proof of how the world started. I have no proof for God, you have no proof for how all of the galaxies, planets, and life came from absolutely nothing. As of now, nobody has been proven right, and nobody is wrong. I would just like all these people who take these theories as fact to stop acting like they know, when, all the theories and ideas, some have no fact, and to stop bashing someone for thinking religion is the answer. You put your faith in science, I will put mine in religion.

        March 29, 2012 at 10:32 am |
      • Primewonk

        Matt, you do not understand the basics of the scientific method, nor do you understand the basic lexicon. You don't even understand what a scientific theory is.

        March 29, 2012 at 10:39 am |
      • G

        I won't put my faith in religion because that is of man. But I will put my faith in jesus. I don't see why we all need to bash each other just because we belive something different. We should all be able to act like adults and discuss instead of arguing saying I'm right and you're wrong. It just saddens me to see all this hate. We're all the same yet different in our own way

        March 29, 2012 at 10:41 am |
      • I'm The Best!

        @ primewonk
        Despite you being on my side, some of your info is wrong, just not drastically so. The mass of the sun doesn't really change. It's density does but that's about it (it does lose a little mass due to solar winds and CME's but that's pretty negligible). And if you meant throughout the earth's overall orbit, it changes by many thousands of miles throughout the year. If you meant its average orbit, you may be right, but if so I've never heard about it.

        March 29, 2012 at 10:42 am |
      • Matt

        Primewonk,

        Words are words. I don't care what you call it, I don't care what the definition of a scienticif theory is compared the a theory is. They are things we created, and things can mean whatever we want them to mean. I'll semi quote Tommy Boy without the language. I could take a crap in a box and mark it gaurenteed, but all you are really buying is a gaurenteed piece of poop. Just because someone says something, what does that mean with out facts. My point is, whatever you want to call these theories, they are just the best ideas we could come up with. Yes, they haven't been proven false, no, they haven't been proven fact. But neither has God. This is my point. Thanks for proving it again.

        March 29, 2012 at 11:09 am |
      • Primewonk

        @ I'm the best –

        This is from NewScientist (I know, not the best source) a couple years ago –
        " Having such a precise yardstick allowed Russian dynamicists Gregoriy A. Krasinsky and Victor A. Brumberg to calculate, in 2004, that the sun and Earth are gradually moving apart. It's not much – just 15 cm per year – but since that's 100 times greater than the measurement error, something must really be pushing Earth outward. But what?

        One idea is that the Sun is losing enough mass, via fusion and the solar wind, to gradually be losing its gravitational grip (see Astronomical unit may need to be redefined). Other possible explanations include a change in the gravitational constant G, the effects of cosmic expansion, and even the influence of dark matter. None have proved satisfactory.

        March 29, 2012 at 12:50 pm |
      • Primewonk

        Matt wrote, " Words are words. I don't care what you call it, I don't care what the definition of a scienticif theory is compared the a theory is. They are things we created, and things can mean whatever we want them to mean. "

        Cool. In that case – the word "know" has many meetings, including to recognize someone, as well as to have s.ex with someone.

        So, Matt? If I ask, do you know your mother, what am I asking?

        March 29, 2012 at 2:51 pm |
      • wisestudent

        Okat, so the Big Bang Theory had NOTHING to do with the forming of the Earth right? WRONG. I just had this lecture last night in my class so I am pretty sure it is updated to the most recent scientific evidence out there.

        1. Big Bang happened almost 14 BILLION Years ago, Earth formed about 9 Billion years later. This was possible because of all the energy and death of stars that created elements that would group together. So actually that release of energy (bang) was the starting of the form of our solar system.
        2. The Sun is 3rd-5th generation star. Meaning it has died and recreated that many times.
        3. The things are getting further from Earth relatively. This is call Red Shift. They know this because as things get further then the light waves get longer than what it was, all things from the Earth orbit outwards from the Sun are getting further away because they are showing the Red Shift which is more visible than Blue wavelengths.

        Finally, I am very religious and believe in creation. How I believe the two fit together is, yes these scientific things happened, but God had a hand in molding it into what has happened. We all know a Day to God is not really a day to us. I believe that things do evolve and change because that is how we are supposed to adapt to our surroundings. There is a way to take science and religion and marry them together to come up with the complete picture. Even those who came up with Evolution theories (Darwin, etc) said that the order of the Earth was too perfect to just naturally happen, there must be a hand guiding it towards what it needs.

        That is the end of my little rant. If you really want to know the newest and most up to date information, take a class at your local college. It does wonders to feed your mind off books, research, and scholars rather than the internet and tv.

        March 29, 2012 at 3:36 pm |
  17. syz

    Why all three holy books have written that human were created by God? Currently I am in a dilemma. I know evolution is true, that means Bible is false. But if I am Christian, are you telling me not to read the Bible? How can we practice science and read Bible same time? Is that possible? Do I have to be atheist to believe in evolution? Unless the scientists can answer this question, i.e. the question whether God exists or not, the Bible will remain and will prevail among all.

    March 29, 2012 at 9:28 am |
    • Steffan

      I too have been conflicted with a mesh of science and faith. Basically, time has always been a work in motion. Time as it is now was formalized not too long ago. Who is to say how long a day was back then? See the point? When you take all that into consideration, it's certainly plausible.

      March 29, 2012 at 9:34 am |
    • Dan

      Do you think God wants us to be able to prove that he exists? I think not – any idiot (or at least most of us) will beleive something that can be proven. It is called belief for a reason? I believe in God, if you require proof, you are in the wrong business; you believe the Bible to be true and yet then cite that as proof that God exists? The Bible contains great truths it is not literal truth, i.e. factual. Science does not require the truths contained in the Bible or in religion in general to be false, just not literally true.

      March 29, 2012 at 9:37 am |
    • Primewonk

      There are 2 billion Christians on the earth. Of that number, 1.8 billion (90%) belong to sects whose position is that there is no problem with a faith in the Christian version of a god, and an understanding that evolution is a fact. It is only amongst the wacky fundameentalists that we see this problem. And sadly, the majority of these wacky fundamentalists live in the US.

      Also, go visit the website of the Clergy Letter Project. 12,000+ professional theologians, ministers, pastors, reverands, etc. who again state that there is no problem with a faith in god and an understanding that evolution is a fact.

      March 29, 2012 at 9:40 am |
      • G

        Just because a select few of theologists agree with evolution doest prove it is true. But I agree that you can belive in God and evolution. I still don't know what I think about all of it. I really don't think its a big deal. I know that God created this earth and universe and don't think its worth arguing over. Its just something to divide people instead of bringing us together

        March 29, 2012 at 9:52 am |
      • Primewonk

        Hmmmmm....

        On one hand you have theologians with years of study (at the accredited univeristy level) and on the other hand we have some Homer's who get their "Pastor" credential for $50. Heck, I got one for $5.00 from the back of Rolling Stone in 1976.

        You have every right G, to be as ignorant as you want. But wearing that ignorance as a badge of honor is just sad.

        March 29, 2012 at 10:31 am |
      • G

        You're the one who is being ignorant. I haven't seen a post of yours where you're being rational or open minded or accepting of others views. I hope you have a blessed day. You can continue to believe all these steriotypes all you want but you've got it all twisted.

        March 29, 2012 at 11:12 am |
      • Primewonk

        Really "G"? How am I being ignorant? And why should I be tolerant of folks who purposefully choose to be ignorant? Not all opinions merit equal weight or validity. Having religious fundamentalists post the same inane drivel over and over is not someething rational folks do. For example – Creationist "A" posts "if we came from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?" Numerous folks take the time to explain to Creationist "A", how and why they are wrong. 10 minutes later, Creationist "A" posts "if we came from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?"

        Yes, you folks have every right to be as ignorant as you want. But wearing that ignorance as a badge of honor is just sad.

        March 29, 2012 at 3:01 pm |
    • sphere82

      Whether god exists or not is something we are not supposed to know, and will hardly ever know. Anyway, if it exists, whick is not likely, it is totally and absolutely different from anything humans have supposed or imagined it to be in their different religions.

      March 29, 2012 at 10:09 am |
      • G

        That's where "faith" comes in to play. I am just amazed at how people just ridicule people for their faith.just because a few people who call themselves christians judged or criticized them for not beliving which is horribly wrong. That's why I don't like labels. I don't call myself a christian but a follower of jesus because there are sooo many people in it for themselves and not jesus

        March 29, 2012 at 10:25 am |
    • Daniel

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theistic_evolution

      This more or less sums up my personal belief on the matter. From what I know the evidence supporting evolution is virtually irrefutable. That, however, doesn't meant that God doesn't exist. If God is the creator of all things, then He must have created evolution as the mechanism by which species can evolve to fill in gaps in the ecosystem as some species go extinct and/or the climate changes. I think you can make some strong arguments towards God taking a more active role in evolution, namely in the process of speciation, and especially in the creation of life itself, but I don't think that necessitates that there cannot be a scientifically verifiable explanation as well. As an analogy, if a man builds a factory to build cars, does that mean the man is no longer the car's creator? Of course not.

      March 29, 2012 at 12:15 pm |
  18. Lucy

    Just what is it that makes the ignorant people posting here so proud of their ignorance? You can't stop people from thinking your ignorant, but you shouldn't be the one that proves it for them.

    March 29, 2012 at 9:06 am |
    • Larry

      So, all that from some foot bones???? I wonder what color the eyes were? Did they own IPODs?

      March 29, 2012 at 10:14 am |
      • Primewonk

        So Larry, because you choose to ignorant about science, you assume everyone else is that ignorant as well?

        You, and the other fundiots are welcome to refute any of the millions of pieces of evidence we have to support ToE. But for some reason, you guys refuse to do so.

        March 29, 2012 at 12:59 pm |
  19. A

    Hey guys, humans are a type of primate. Evolution aside, at the present time we are all classified as great apes. Deal with it. There's nothing wrong with being an ape.

    March 29, 2012 at 9:03 am |
  20. Primewonk

    Randy wrote, " The real Lucy was not found all together, as some parts were found 150ft deeper nearly 2 miles from each other. That's a huge "if" as to trying to paste one thing/species altogether."

    Seriously? That's amazing! This proves that evilution is false!

    Oh wait. What you posted is a lie. It's a lie told over and over by creationists who purposefully choose to be ignorant.

    The question is – why do you guys do this?

    March 29, 2012 at 9:03 am |
    • hecep

      Why do they do it? To keep the collection plate full.

      March 29, 2012 at 9:08 am |
    • cyprian

      How on earth did you come to the conclusion that 150ft is nearly 2 miles? Sincerely, friend, 150ft is just 0.28409 miles. it takes 5280ft to make 1 mile. it bone fossils are 150ft apart, they are pretty close, considering the interplay of times and seasons.

      March 29, 2012 at 9:47 am |
      • just sayin

        LOL 150 Ft DEEPER, not apart. But thanks for clarifying how many feet in a mile🙂

        March 29, 2012 at 7:52 pm |
    • sumday

      and my question to you is- prove evolution! You claim it to be true and scientific so please for the love of G-d produce a testable theory- bc without a TESTABLE theory it is not science (please review the scientific method and tell me where evolution fits in when it is not testable nor predictable)! Produce a mathematical equation for it- all other theories can be proven by math, adhere to the doctrine of the proven/testable scientific laws- that being things don't magically happen out of thin air- there is cause and effect. Something HAD to have caused the mutations to make evolution work it didn't just magically happen. Just tell us what causes evolution to happen and how it happens in harmony and synchronization IE predators don’t out evolve the prey. The theory has been around for over a 100yrs and in that time we have landed on the moon, advanced medically, created advanced computers and their programs, ect yet in all that time with all those advancements we still have not “proven” through math and testing that evolution is real- I mean don’t you find it ironic that a saber tooth tiger looks very similar to today’s tiger after millions of yr of separation. Even in the fossil records we don’t seem to see 1 species turning into another, instead we see the species changing a little, but remaining pretty much the same even after millions of years. Also if life has been around for millions to billions of years then there should be a butt load of bones lying around. For example we know humans have been around for say 10Kyrs and our current population is roughly 7 BILLION (not counting those who have already died), so then if life has been around for millions to billions of yrs a simple population MATH Equation will show you that there should be trillion times trillion animal skeletons laying around not a few scattered here and there. The thing with evolution is it is passed of as a random fact of science yet it is not testable, predicable, nor is there a mathematic equation to it- all things every other accepted theory has and was required of.

      March 29, 2012 at 9:57 am |
      • martijn

        Oh My Dear Lord Jesus Christ..... Sumday, please do not theorize over things you do not have knowledge about. please. It´s mindboggling.

        March 29, 2012 at 10:32 am |
      • Primewonk

        Again, in science we explain things, we don't prove things. Theories exist to explain sets of facts and laws. Theories do not need mathematical formulas to "proven".

        Why do you denigrate what you clearly do not understand?

        March 29, 2012 at 10:55 am |
      • Let's try to learn something...

        1. Mutations occur in the genome of an organism. This may cause a change in the animal such as a slightly stronger beak of a bird which gives it an advantage over other birds. This bird then survives to produce more birds with the same trait. That's how they change

        2. Bones can only be preserved in favorable conditions, otherwise they eventually decay. Maybe you should have thought for two seconds before writing that.

        Hope you learned something🙂 (I sincerely do)

        March 29, 2012 at 8:11 pm |
    • Randy

      its not a lie. But I like your Mom's link back to the ape I can see the similarities.

      March 29, 2012 at 10:54 am |
      • Primewonk

        Of course it's a lie Randy. None of the scientists invloved ever said what you claim. Instead, what you claim comes from creationist websites posting lies about science.

        Otherwise, you would have absolutely no problem posting a link to an actual science site that supports your claim. For some reason, after thousands of requests to you fundiots over the years, not a single solitary one of you folks have ever posted a link supporting this lie.

        I wonder why?

        March 29, 2012 at 11:08 am |
  21. achepotle

    Nice try with the chicken bone, libtuurds! Jesus made us out of mud and sticks 6000 years ago. You must think we are some stupid!! LOL!

    March 29, 2012 at 8:59 am |
    • hecep

      Painfully obvious troll.

      March 29, 2012 at 9:06 am |
  22. Jokesterer

    Hopefully Santorum brings back the inquisition and we can put an end to all this science.

    March 29, 2012 at 8:58 am |
  23. king

    religion is the belief that what someone else tells you is true while science is the belief that what someone else tells you is true.

    March 29, 2012 at 8:56 am |
    • A

      Actually we scientists use evidence. There is no "belief" in science, only prove or disprove. We really need to get off the word "belief" when it comes to science.

      March 29, 2012 at 9:06 am |
      • G

        Science is actualy all theory. You "scientists" should all know that. I could take a couple ape bones and scatter them around in the dirt with some human bones and call it grandpa charlie.
        I call BS

        March 29, 2012 at 9:25 am |
      • Cedar Rapids

        " I could take a couple ape bones and scatter them around in the dirt with some human bones and call it grandpa charlie."

        and if you were a "scientist" you would know that those bones would be studied, analyzed, dated, compared to previous examples, etc etc etc, so you could call it what you like but it would soon be exposed for what it was.
        I call you have no idea what you are talking about.

        March 29, 2012 at 9:27 am |
      • G

        haha yeah they compare it with all the other ape bones they have found. Its still all theory no matter how hard you try justifying this. If you're not familiar with the word theory its in the dictionary

        March 29, 2012 at 9:41 am |
      • dick

        G is right. and this evolution stuff defies many established laws, pretends they arent there as well as has no evidence just like in this article. 8 little bones. bones of what? describing a whole animal/ape/human and habits then the article just happens to mention but they dont know anything at this point, need more bones whatever its all phooey. Trust in Jesus search to find Him is much better and for the win.

        March 29, 2012 at 9:46 am |
    • ReasonableXX

      The difference is with science there is evidence, that is available for anyone to observe, and the conclusions must stand up to the scrutiny of independent peer reviews from other scientists located all over the world. It is an amazing and unprecedented conspiracy if they are all deceiving us. How do they benefit from such a deception?

      March 29, 2012 at 9:17 am |
  24. JMorcan

    It's a monkey.

    March 29, 2012 at 8:43 am |
    • Primewonk

      No it isn't.

      Unless, of course, you have some actual science to support this assertion?

      March 29, 2012 at 9:05 am |
      • rodney

        scientific evidence of being a chimp (technically not a "monkey") from the article: "The Burtele foot lacks the large spherical ends at the big toe and instead has a short, divergent big toe, like a chimp..."

        March 29, 2012 at 9:29 am |
      • Primewonk

        monkey =/= chimp

        March 29, 2012 at 3:04 pm |
  25. Historygeek

    From a scientific stand point the fact that there are different kinds of cats and dogs and birds and whales and so on and son doesn't it seem likely that their were different types of people. I mean their is proof that their were neandrathal's pardon my spelling, and the died out a while ago can't remember exactly when. Just sayin from a common sense perspective it seems likely their would have been more until or up to the creation of they city because by then people were so engrossed in enslaving and killing each other that we probably killed them off cause its what we do when their are differences.

    March 29, 2012 at 8:24 am |
    • Randy

      No!! It was proven exactly to only be a man, only a man. (neanderthal-man) you are speaking about.

      March 29, 2012 at 8:32 am |
      • Cedar Rapids

        wait, you are claiming neanderthals were simply modern humans?

        March 29, 2012 at 9:12 am |
      • Randy

        Yeah. Human is a human is a human. Are claiming its a squid?

        March 29, 2012 at 10:50 am |
    • Tom

      Just like there are different species of cats and dogs, there are different species of primates. Humans are just one species that we know of living today. I personally believe that there are still some other species that live in hiding. They are not as smart as humans, but they are smart enough to avoid Humans because they know that humans will destroy them or capture them for research or entertainment. Thoughout our lives, there were many sightings of different human like animals, like the Yeti, the Snowman and the Bigfoot which I believe do exist in small numbers.

      March 29, 2012 at 10:20 am |
  26. justmeanddog

    @clearfog: You stated earlier in reply to MarcusA’s statement that Evolution has no “long-term goal”: “I agree that there is no long term goal, it is essentially applied probability theory.” What makes you think that the process of Evolution itself, as an example of “Applied Probability Theory”, is not the end result of a much larger evolving Methodology itself? Perhaps it is the highest possible form of Intervention Methodology that will insure long-term structural stability is imparted into the recipients of its effects and as such has survived to become the dominant system. It may be that other forces for change arose and fell over the Eons and that the process of Evolution has survived as a result of its being the most adaptable methodology whereby Adaptable Species arise and survive long enough to Evolve and secure a stable population. If this is so it may help to explain why it took so long, relatively speaking, for an intelligent Species such as Humans to gain a foothold. Other more Rapid systems may have produced progeny more quickly but with lower long-term survivability rates and hence less likely hood that those progeny would survive to produce numbers which could successfully compete with the Progeny of the coincidently evolving process of Evolution, until eventually we end up with the Process of Evolution as the dominant Methodology for change. In effect then this would mean that Evolution itself could be the end result of a “Master Plan of applied Probability Theory” working on the system as a whole. Which could infer that there was indeed a “ Long-term Goal” imbedded in the Evolutionary Process. Specifically that being its ability to demonstrate itself to be the most reliable “Process Methodology” for reliably imparting long-term Species adaptability, and hence survivability, into the ecosystem as a whole by removing competing systems through a process of slow but steady species Genocide.

    March 29, 2012 at 8:24 am |
    • cmorcat

      For those that argue that the human species is no longer evolving/mutating, could you explain to me why we no longer need our appendix? Some people who have posted on this subject have demonstrated that their branch of our species no longer have use of their cranial cavity.

      March 29, 2012 at 8:57 am |
  27. James

    They forgot to mention that Lucy was concluded false because she was pieced together from different eras.....Plus people have always climbed trees because sometimes the fruit was out of reach....

    March 29, 2012 at 8:15 am |
    • McBain05

      Lucy was never proved false. Cite your evidence. Please use academic sources.

      March 29, 2012 at 8:29 am |
    • Bob R

      I'm guessing James' academic source is a primitive tribe of hunter/gatherers who put together a book to explain the mysteries of the natural world several thousand years ago.

      There are more current references available believe it or not.

      March 29, 2012 at 8:45 am |
    • JPopNC

      Thanks so much James. It just goes to show how Darwinists are so quick to adopt ANY given thing that pops up without a shred of supporting information. One tiny little bone, that could be associated to anything (like fake Lucy) and they're building all kinds of civilizations around it. It's just hysterical.

      March 29, 2012 at 8:46 am |
      • Cedar Rapids

        again, please cite this information about 'fake' lucy, and the picture shows 1 bone but read the article, it states 8 foot bones were found.

        March 29, 2012 at 9:01 am |
      • Sybaris

        Science gets you to the moon. Religion flies you into buildings.

        So when you need a heart transplant just stay home and pray. It'll leave more hearts available for us rational people.

        March 29, 2012 at 9:02 am |
    • The_Mick

      James, you not telling the truth. Lucy was not shown to be false. Lucy was also not the only example of her kind found. What is true that more than one hominid species from that time has been found and some hominid lines, like the later Neanderthals, died out without become part of our ancestry. But there are near complete skeletons of humans which were not quite as evolved as us, like the over 1,000,000 year old "Turkana Boy" discovered by Richard Leakey.

      March 29, 2012 at 9:02 am |
    • GoogleIt

      Why is it that people who post/reply to things on the internet can't take five minutes to google something? James, Lucy was not a compilation of bones from multiple sites. They found a shin bone and femur, then started digging, didn't find anything. On a hunch, they started to look in a different area and found 40% of an intact skeleton on the side of a hill.

      So, there's where someone spun the facts to try and disprove Lucy. because they found a shin bone in another location, and 99% of the rest of the skeleton at another, and in my short amount of research needed to dispel your theory I am not even sure if the shin bone was used in the final recreation of Lucy. So please people, before you type it, google it.

      March 29, 2012 at 9:11 am |
    • johnfrichardson

      James is wrong. The desperate measures and willingness to lie of the "faithful" strike again. Yes, we know them by their fruits, their bitter, rancid fruits.

      March 29, 2012 at 9:15 am |
    • JT

      Dude, you really need to stop accepting everything your pastor tells you. It just makes you look like an illiterate flat-earther.

      March 29, 2012 at 9:20 am |
      • G

        Can't we all just get along? And you might want to stop believing everything these scientists tell you because you look even more ridiculous criticizing someone just because they have a different belief. You people are just crazy

        March 29, 2012 at 9:33 am |
  28. James

    They forgot to mention that Lucy was concluded false because she was pieced together from different eras.....

    March 29, 2012 at 8:14 am |
    • Cedar Rapids

      citation?

      March 29, 2012 at 9:01 am |
    • Robert

      James, Lucy was never proven false and was not "pieced together with bones from different eras. I believe you are referring to Piltdown Man, which was conclusively proven to be a fraud.

      March 29, 2012 at 9:04 am |
  29. jojo

    The more i read about this kind of stuff the more I am convinced they have no idea what they are talking about

    March 29, 2012 at 8:10 am |
    • karek40

      From whence comes this fantastic insite. It is all conjecture, no viable proof, just conjecture.

      March 29, 2012 at 8:51 am |
    • Sybaris

      Right. It's called a learning process. Something that religionists shun because religion depends on ignorance to perpetuate. Regardless, I really doubt you are an expert on anatomy and can make the call as to the integrity of these folks observations.

      March 29, 2012 at 9:09 am |
    • hecep

      That's because it's too complicated for YOU to understand. Because YOU don't understand it, doesn't necessarily mean that the other person is wrong.

      March 29, 2012 at 9:11 am |
    • Primewonk

      I guess the key thing to consider is – what is your basis for you deciding this way?

      Do you have advanced degrees in the relevant scientific fields? Do you have significant field research experience?

      If you read a paragraph about scientists using Calabi-Yau manifolds to explain higher dimensions in superstring theory, would you make the same claim?

      March 29, 2012 at 9:18 am |
  30. Common Sense

    it's almost impossible to prove it as a anceastor with so littel of the skeleton and no dna.Although it's still very fasinating

    March 29, 2012 at 7:38 am |
  31. Jt_flyer

    Looks like Eve to me but it could be Adam. Let's consult the expert Rick Santorum

    March 29, 2012 at 7:26 am |
  32. 4commonsensenow

    Show me the DNA

    March 29, 2012 at 6:55 am |
    • Geezer

      Your complete lack of understanding is incredible! I'm surprised you can spell "DNA".

      This is a 3.4 Million year old fossil. They are not bones; there is no DNA left in it for almost 3.4 million years

      March 29, 2012 at 9:05 am |
  33. John

    It seems that creatures do evolve and get smarter, but what about the muslim terrorists?
    They continue to live in the 4th or 5th century.
    I think these guys are less intelligent than anyone on the planet. Nobody has ever been able to tell me what muslins do with all the "used" virgins that each terrorist is awarded after they murder a bunch of innocent people.

    March 29, 2012 at 6:31 am |
    • Ralph

      Ignorance is curable, but Stupidity is terminal.

      March 29, 2012 at 6:46 am |
      • Frank

        Do you know why there were no Muslims in the original Star Trek show? Because the show was set in the future...

        March 29, 2012 at 8:28 am |
    • Rhino_Down

      There were no Muslims in the 4th or 5th century; implying that they carry on their cultural ways from that timeframe would be incorrect.

      March 29, 2012 at 6:51 am |
    • Bob Smith

      I think they're stuck with them. To a more experienced man, this would be considered hell. But to a virgin muslim male, they're not thinking past arrival. They'll be wishing a different fate a week after they're dead. Getting 17 virgins is a hell of a lot easier than getting rid of them.

      March 29, 2012 at 6:58 am |
    • Daniel

      Medieval Muslims were actually quite a bit more educated and progressive that fanatical terrorist "muslims" are these days. Algebra, distillation (ironic that Muslims invented heavy liquor – that's where the word alcohol comes from), an early basis for the scientific method, an early version of what would late become the modern unversity system – Muslims have contributed immensely to the modern world. The printing press and Indian Numerals (called Arabic numerals in the West) were also transmitted to Europe via Muslim scholars. It's not the religion, it's the people and the societies that have deteriorated into religious fanatacism that has lead to all the mindless bloodshed.

      March 29, 2012 at 7:10 am |
      • karek40

        Isn't that generally the end state of a Dictator/vasal state. Keep them uneducated and dependent so you can remain a dictator.

        March 29, 2012 at 8:56 am |
    • joe

      You must never of heard of the Sub-Sahara.

      March 29, 2012 at 8:47 am |
    • Melodykari78

      Just give them a little more time to evolve. Sooner or later they will be like modern day Christians. Didn't some Christians go around killing people in the name of God some years back?...

      March 29, 2012 at 9:36 am |
    • One God Worshiper

      You live in the 4th or 5th century if you believe these killings of innocents is part of someone's religion. Obviously, they are misguided people who need to be killed if they kill unjustly. That goes for anyone. Let's keep the discussion above such foolishness.

      March 30, 2012 at 1:40 am |
  34. Veronica13

    Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. ~Albert Einstein

    March 29, 2012 at 6:31 am |
    • Ralph

      I support Einstein's right to have his opinion, the same as I support your right to have your opinion.

      March 29, 2012 at 6:39 am |
    • clearfog

      A quote from the same letter: "The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this." Albert Einstein. Taking things out of context is, well, taking things out of context.

      March 29, 2012 at 6:40 am |
      • Randy

        Clear fog if you want to know where and exactly how Lucy was found refer to the doctor who found her as well as his speeches where he admitted those facts that parts were found some two miles apart as well as 150ft deeper. Sorry to hear this disappoints ya.

        March 29, 2012 at 7:55 am |
      • Cedar Rapids

        "Clear fog if you want to know where and exactly how Lucy was found refer to the doctor who found her as well as his speeches where he admitted those facts that parts were found some two miles apart as well as 150ft deeper. Sorry to hear this disappoints ya."

        common creationist argument but long debunked. The guy was talking about the knee bone he had found the previous season, not the Lucy skeleton.

        March 29, 2012 at 9:22 am |
      • Primewonk

        Randy, you have made this claim about Lucy numerous times now. You have been asked repeatedly to post the source for this. Why do you you refuse?

        March 29, 2012 at 9:26 am |
    • ReasonableXX

      This is a classic example of quote mining. Anybody who knows even the most basic facts about Einstein knows that he used god and religion as metophors for nature and the physical laws. He did not believe in a person god that sits in the sky granting wishes to his faithful followers.

      March 29, 2012 at 9:28 am |
  35. Ralph

    Religion vs Science. Religion is believing what you WANT to believe. Science is believing what you HAVE to believe based on facts and evidence. Oldest writings in the Bible are about 3,000 years old. Word of mouth before that. Religion does not have the burden of having to deal with facts. Faith is all it needs. Science does not have that luxury. It by definition has to subject itself to proof and any new facts as they become available. In this country you have the right to choose and I support that. On the other hand, in Public Schools funded with tax payer dollars, I insist that only facts be presented as facts and theories be presented as theories subject to change to fit the current state of knowledge. That is all I got, THANKS for listening.

    March 29, 2012 at 6:28 am |
    • Randy

      That's the smartest thing anybody said since midnight. Any takes on Lucy being called a "partial ape-man skeleton" in this article when that was not the official filing?

      March 29, 2012 at 6:32 am |
      • clearfog

        "Lucy is estimated to have lived 3.2 million years ago. The discovery of this hominin was significant as the skeleton shows evidence of small skull capacity akin to that of apes and of bipedal upright walk akin to that of humans, providing further evidence supporting the view that bipedalism preceded increase in brain size in human evolution." Wikipedia (the tool of the anti-Christ). Like they said, part ape, part hominin. Simple.

        March 29, 2012 at 6:55 am |
      • Randy

        Clear Fog – now you just took it out of context yourself. "40% of the skeleton of an individual Australopithecus afarensis." And if you read the entire article about this – again, 40 of a body is misleading. There is no proof that it is of the "same body" or not a mix of two bodies – science classified it as such because parts were found 150 ft deeper than some parts as well as nearly 2 miles away from each other. Bipedal means nothing when apes themselves can walk standing up. This was not completed in argument for big toe nor hips.

        March 29, 2012 at 7:02 am |
      • JPopNC

        The scientists were not allowed to examine Lucy's bones up until 1982. When they finally did, guess what they found? They found out that you couldn't really tell the difference between Lucy and a rainforest Chimpanzee that you might find in the San Diego Zoo.

        March 29, 2012 at 8:52 am |
      • Cedar Rapids

        "science classified it as such because parts were found 150 ft deeper than some parts as well as nearly 2 miles away from each other"

        all of the Lucy skeleton was found in the same spot, the 150ft deeper and 2 miles away refers the a knee bone they had found the previous season, not the Lucy skeleton.

        "The scientists were not allowed to examine Lucy's bones up until 1982. When they finally did, guess what they found? They found out that you couldn't really tell the difference between Lucy and a rainforest Chimpanzee that you might find in the San Diego Zoo"

        oh please, you can cite the source for this right?

        March 29, 2012 at 9:16 am |
      • johnfrichardson

        @JPopNC What are you blathering about? Just making up stories? Give a citation for your claim or admit that you are a liar.

        March 29, 2012 at 9:18 am |
    • Jon

      Ralph, Religion does take faith, but "Science" can take just as much. What came before the big bang? What caused the big bang? Remember the world used to be flat (granted that was not as widely accepted as history teaches). Evolution as an origin of man or any higher species has never been proven. The scientific method starts with a hypothesis, then tested it becomes a theory. However, Evolution can not be tested, so by definition is not even a theory. There is a lot of so called evidence, but that same evidence can "prove" creation just as easily. You have to believe that carbon dating is accurate if someone was not around millions of years ago to say yes your tests are correct. Plus you can pull some pretty inaccurate carbon dates from all over the earth that say something is millions of years old and oops that was formed or grew in recent decades. A lot of "Science" seems like faith to me.

      March 29, 2012 at 6:57 am |
      • Steve_vgm

        I agree- very well said.

        March 29, 2012 at 8:08 am |
      • RJ

        Believing in carbon dating is like believing in microwaves(the appliance AND the wave). I really would love to see your proof on how evidence shows the creation story is real using the same information that proves evolution. It might look a little like a Monty Python sketch in my mind.

        March 29, 2012 at 8:09 am |
      • Yes it can...

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_long-term_evolution_experiment

        ...and there you have it: Evolution happening right before your eyes.

        March 29, 2012 at 9:02 am |
      • 1plus1

        Jon,
        Your comments are disturbingly ignorant. I am still amazed at the level of ignorance with which people will speak as if they are experts.

        Saying there is no evidence for evolution is like saying there is no evidence for sunlight. Saying evolution cannot be proven is just a lie, it has been shown in experiments with fruit flies, and others. The fossil record doesn't lie.

        Also, Science doesn't take any faith what so ever. You ask "what came before the big bang?" as if some faith is required here.. this is just your twisted preconceived notion about knowledge and science showing it's ugly head. The answer to these types of questions is We Don't Know. And that's ok. Science is not afraid to say "we don't know", science will change as new data become available. Also, just because Science does not have the answer, does not mean that there is a supernatural explanation. How you can jump to that is beyond me.. "I don't know how my body actually digests food and gives me energy.. therefore it must be a supernatural phenomenon". – sounds silly don't it?

        March 29, 2012 at 9:11 am |
    • Mememe

      VERY well said!

      March 29, 2012 at 7:50 am |
    • Les

      Thanks for that, it makes sense to me.
      Science: Even if you don't believe in evolution or the existence of early hominids (man) you still have the discovered remains, fossilized bones. We know the process for fossilization, and we know that carbon dating has a real basis in fact. There are SO MANY bones found from all over the world, that even if some of themn were dated incorrectly, there is still a body of evidence that needs to be explained. Religion: No physical evidence whatsoever. There is just as much evidence for UFOs as there is for GOD.

      March 29, 2012 at 8:29 am |
      • Matt

        Here is some science and evidence for you, the earth is slowly moving away from the sun. Scientists say this is because of the big bang theory, and proves this theory because it shows the earth is still moving and has been for millions of years since the "big bang"..... Problem is, at the rate the earth is moving away from the sun, the earth cannot be a million years old, only thousands (which is what the Bible would say it is) because at the rate the earth is moving away from the sun, if you reverse that to see where it was in the past, you would realize the earth would not exist, because the sun would burn it, and this would be well before you reach a million years. if this is the case, and yet the Bible is still untrue, we evolved from some single celled organisims, to who knows what, to an ape (or hominin or whatever you want to call these mixed up/partial bone species), to the complex beings we are today in only thousands of years...hard to believe, and i would think we would have some sort of Xmen running around here by now if evolution was really this fast. Science is based a lot on faith too, as well as what they want you to hear. Gigantopithicas (no idea how to spell that) has been made up because we have found part of a jaw, and teeth we believe to be from that jaw. A lot of our evlolutionary 'ancestors' are made up, once again, science gives you what they want you to see or hear, but doesn't prove itself.

        March 29, 2012 at 9:00 am |
      • 1plus1

        Matt,

        Save yourself the embarrassment, and don't comment on things that you don't understand.

        Mainstream science doesn't believe the earth is moving away from the Sun because of the big bang.. I doubt you've heard this from an actual scientist, because it's simply not the case. It's true that certain bodies are moving away from each other because of the big bang, but these are things like galaxies, not stars within galaxies and not planets around stars. The galaxies are basically bound together by gravity. The only things being pushed away from each other because of the big bang are things that aren't tied together by gravity.

        March 29, 2012 at 9:21 am |
      • Matt

        1plus1

        You are trying to prove me wrong by saying the big bang theory is correct. How did we get a big bang that created a blast that made all these planets and galaxies and formed life forms that evolved and mutated from single celled organisms to complex humans and animals we have today? How did these particles that are needed for the big bang to happend get there. Science will never have all the answers, and will be based on faith just as religion is. That is what I was trying to say with the previous statement. I put my faith in religion. No, I am not an idiot who turns away at the thought of science, I believe that has its place too and has done many great things. But as far as how the world was made, who or what I believe in, and what I believe happens to me when I die, I believe in God and what the Bible teaches. If you don't, and choose to put your faith in science and their theories, as I have in stories from the Bible, that is fine. It is your right and choice to believe in what you want. But both take some faith by believing in what they are. I believe in God because he is God. You believe in science because it has been right, has some theories, and is the mainstream way to think. Neither has been proven right or wrong, neither view should be punished or mocked.

        March 29, 2012 at 10:25 am |
  36. mdupoise

    This is a great little article. A new discovery, a mystery to be solved. Most excellent....but I knew someone would taint the moment and bring religion into it. Why, Why, Why does there always have be someone who thinks they have DIRECT KNOWLEDGE of a supreme being because a BOOK says there is one? If anyone offered the same amout of physical evidence to support an all powerful being (not the mere existance of a man and corelating stories told by oral tradition) then we could have a discussion on it along side of this one. I say again, I DO wish people would keep thier damned religious beliefs to themselves! Your relationship to whatever "god" you believe in is between you and that "god" the rest of us dont CARE and DONT want to hear about it!

    March 29, 2012 at 5:47 am |
    • Randy

      Because this article starts with a lie stating that Lucy was indeed a partial ape-man skeleton. That's not anything to do with religion. It's a lie.

      March 29, 2012 at 5:55 am |
      • mdupoise

        there is as much proof of any "god" as there is extraterrestrails. There I said it! If relgion is to be brought in then aliens are the next logical step right. There is as much "proof" in "god" in the Bible/Quran than in "Chariots of the Gods" by Erich von Däniken. In fact, at least I KNOW for sure who wrote Chariots of the Gods! This is why priests refuse to talk to me anymore...hahahahaha Go ahead, eventually someone will say it: "it's Gods will" Thats the moment you know you have won the argument, the phrase every Christian or relgious defender uses when they have run out of explanations plausible or not...it's my "gotcha ya" moment. This what being raised a Catholic does to you when you reach the "age of reason" and scratch your head and mutter, 'what the hell"? 🙂

        It's time for another cup of the nectar of the Gods....coffee. 🙂

        Then off to work...enjoyed the banter...

        March 29, 2012 at 6:14 am |
    • clearfog

      What,no religious fanatics and spoil all the fun? Randy is the quintessential religious zealot to which you refer. Randy, meet mdupoise. Mdupoise, meet the poster boy of your nightmares.

      March 29, 2012 at 6:07 am |
      • Randy

        Wow. I posted that the article begins with a lie – to which none of you non-religious people care to address whatsoever. I love it. God has already saved you apparently, and so you can read the same question 50 times and never have to come up with an answer – just attack God. That's nice man, really nice. Still have a few more minutes to argue with rocks though. Keep em coming. Nobody of intelligence has stopped to argue the "lie" that I've stated over and over in this article. I bet CNN will have changed that tomorrow though. Wanna bet???

        March 29, 2012 at 6:17 am |
      • mdupoise

        Hahahah, thanks Frog. Just what I need, another trespasser to turn the hose on...lol. (its a long but true story by the way. ) Hope I didnt get Randy's day off to bad start...

        March 29, 2012 at 6:18 am |
      • mdupoise

        I meant FOG...damned typos....

        March 29, 2012 at 6:20 am |
      • Randy

        actually fog evolved into a frog overnight and you just proved it!! Oh that's funny!! And no mdupoise my "day" is ending in 30 minutes – and trying to help ignorant people is my job. Keep posting.

        March 29, 2012 at 6:27 am |
      • clearfog

        That's okay. Everyone loves money, so I don't mind being thought of as a greenback.

        March 29, 2012 at 6:28 am |
      • clearfog

        You help ignorant people? Ever hear the expression: "The blind leading the blind?"

        March 29, 2012 at 6:31 am |
      • mdupoise

        Its ok Randy, really. You see deep down I look at it this way. Someday, at somepoint in the distant future wayyyy beyoond my lifespan either ALL of us or MOST of us are going to be proven VERY VERY wrong, lol. I have a killer sense of humour and I dont take much of anything seriously anymore. I think it would be hilarious if eventually , we discover that humankinds existance is soley because millions of years ago, some intergalactic family on a weekend getaway stopped on earth to take a dump...(aka primordial ooze) and thats how it all began....hahahahahahahah. lol, its actually a perfect explanation really, it quashes everything in one go. lol including taking the wind out of humanity's arrogance. I hope this makes you smile...lol...I giggle everytime I think about it.

        March 29, 2012 at 6:31 am |
      • jimstead

        The fool has said in his heart, there is no god

        March 29, 2012 at 8:36 am |
    • emjay

      in the end, we believe what we want to believe....reason, truth,pictures, heresay, etc....we apply truth, so THEY SAY, and TRUST or have faith, it is true...my Grandmother still believes the landing on the moon was a set in Hollywood...even seeing is not believing anymore...it all comes down to faith....

      March 29, 2012 at 8:20 am |
  37. p-body

    looks like my chicken dinner

    March 29, 2012 at 5:11 am |
  38. Randy

    We have as much proof of being on the verge of discovering Big Foot (which many people believe) as we do to discoverning evidence that an ape evolved into a human being. The proof, nor evidence is there. To call it a "missing link" misleads the public into believing it's there – it just has not yet been found.

    March 29, 2012 at 4:41 am |
    • clearfog

      You are still confusing proof and evidence. I thought that I taught you the difference. There was no evolution in your understanding of science. Actually, there is a plethora of such evidence which establishes a conditional proof, subject to alteration should new contrary evidence appear. Got any?

      March 29, 2012 at 4:51 am |
      • Randy

        You're actually stating Big Foot is there we just haven't found him?? bwahahahahaa!! That's hilariously sad man.

        March 29, 2012 at 4:56 am |
      • clearfog

        Randy. You seem to have a problem with reading comprehension. The only big foot I believe in is the one you keep inserting into your mouth.

        March 29, 2012 at 5:36 am |
      • Randy

        clearfog: Actually, there is a plethora of such evidence which establishes a conditional proof, subject to alteration should new contrary evidence appear. Got any?

        Do I got any what??? you've thrown out conditional proof tonight, predictable proof...yada yada yada. What I need to prove if my statement is that the missing link is as mystical as the Jolly Green Giant and or Big Foot?? As for you teaching me and the way you thought you were getting my goat tonight – I've spent a rather great evening and hope to see you Friday when I get to make double time and a half staying all night up, fulfilling your masculine fantasies. Somebody having daddy issues???

        March 29, 2012 at 5:43 am |
      • clearfog

        Like a bad bowman, you sling your errors (sic) in all directions, but you keep missing the Mark (as well as the Matthew. Luke, and John). Speaking of the getting of goats, isn't one of the versions of the Ten Commandments in the Bible that you should not cook a young goat in its mother's milk? Now THERE is a practical rule for living a good life.

        March 29, 2012 at 5:50 am |
      • Randy

        Clearly foggy what are smoking man? Your last post was about as pointless as a potato.

        March 29, 2012 at 5:58 am |
    • damo12345

      Yes, yes, evolution isn't real, dog breeding doesn't happen, the similarities between human and chimp genomes are a giant coincidence, natural selection is a big lie but YHWH totally followed through on his promise to lead the Jews out of the desert and into a land of Milk and honey where nothing bad ever happened to them again.

      March 29, 2012 at 4:56 am |
      • p-body

        ooh the irony

        March 29, 2012 at 5:12 am |
    • Chuck Anziulewicz

      DEAR RANDY: We are actually ALL "missing links." We are ALL "transitional forms." Evolution is a long, gradual process, and what human beings are today is simply the tip of the evolutionary branch. But the branch is still growing.

      March 29, 2012 at 5:17 am |
      • Randy

        Chuck, there is no proof of any species becoming another species. Has not happened. Evolving is not becoming another species. Evolution in its proper sense, of course occurs, but not to the extent that I will one day grow wings and learn to fly (minus a parachute). Nor will I become a dolphin years from now, nor will my babies and 400 year old great-grand babies become swimming sharks. That's what most people believe 'evolution' means – or 'meant' – and some are deadset on believing it's how we started in some form of an ape, and ended up as humans. We do not mutate and become another species. Period

        March 29, 2012 at 5:26 am |
      • Grant

        Once again you don't understand how evolution works. No evolutionary biologist would ever say you are going to grow wings or become a dolphin. But keep talking its hilarious that you wont even make the effort to learn how evolution works.

        March 29, 2012 at 5:31 am |
      • clearfog

        As I recall, the growing of wings is a Christian concept. You know, angels and all. But I don't mean to harp.

        March 29, 2012 at 5:38 am |
      • Randy

        Grant, how is it that I have no idea how evolution works? I've asked several times to explain macro and micro. I've stated that evolution does indeed happen. I've stated that most who argue evolution do "not understand" that it does indeed take place, but not to the point that Darwin leaps years beyond his chances of proving (or disproving) that we evolved from Apes. State your case. It happens. Does it mean we then had to come from Apes? Nope. And it doesn't make a theory any more a proof or evidence that the theory holds any water.

        March 29, 2012 at 5:39 am |
      • Randy

        ClearFog. Where in the world you have claim to have any knowledge about Christianity is very evident if you think we grow to have wings and become angels. The Christian faith teaches that humans would be in charge of angels, you don't become angels. Once again, thanks for trying. God be with you.

        March 29, 2012 at 5:50 am |
      • clearfog

        Oh boy, I get to be in charge of angels, those things with wings. I hope they look like the Victoria's Secret models. This is better than the 72 virgins. Virgins are overrated anyway. I'm going to get baptized (again) tomorrow. Thanks for the info. Eternity is going to be fun.

        March 29, 2012 at 5:55 am |
  39. who has a anthropology major

    y do you all consistantly try to imply your inteligence through a small article written on a blog dont anyone give you attention apparently not or instead of being on this blog you would be discussing this with a real person

    March 29, 2012 at 4:32 am |
    • clearfog

      1. an not a
      2. doesn't not don't

      With those changes, now I feel properly chastised for thinking I am intelligent. Thank you.

      March 29, 2012 at 4:42 am |
      • ibagraduate

        FYI, the use of 'a' rather than 'an' IS correct. Aint got no reason to see why you couldn't figure that, if u wuz as inteligent as u said us wuz.

        March 29, 2012 at 8:47 am |
  40. One God Worshiper

    Bootyfunk,

    You mentioned the Qur'an as part of the discussion concerning science and religion are at odds This is not the case. Since the Creator of the heavens and the earth created everything, he also created laws that the creation obeys, that being the laws of science. I recommend you read a book called "The Bible, Qur'an and Science" by Dr. Maurice Bucaille, who was a French physician who learned Arabic in order to compare the scientific mistakes in the Bible and the Qur'an He found many in the Bible. He found NONE in the Qur'an. The book addresses all of what you mentioned above (the order of creation in the Bible and Qur'an, the Flood, the Pharoah of Moses, etc) in painstaking detail and much more.

    As a result of his research, he found that every scientific statement in the Qur'an is in agreement with established scientific facts - some of which were not discovered until the last century.

    Just a suggestion..

    March 29, 2012 at 4:09 am |
    • clearfog

      Explain the physics of the flying horse that took Mohammed to heaven.

      March 29, 2012 at 4:37 am |
      • Charlie Bravo

        Fairy dust.

        March 29, 2012 at 5:38 am |
      • clearfog

        Damn. No wonder that angel dust didn't make me fly. I needed fairy dust.

        March 29, 2012 at 5:40 am |
      • One God Worshiper

        I explain the "physics" behind Muhammad's ascension with the horse to the heavens in the same way that he, illiterate man, received information about a number of scientific phenomena that NO HUMAN KNEW before it was confirmed by modern scientific knowledge: A MIRACLE! There, I said it. This is not my statement, but the statement of a number of scientists who are experts in their respective fields (geology, botany, embryology, physics). Don't take my word for it. Google it for yourself.

        March 29, 2012 at 6:38 am |
      • clearfog

        I'd rather take your word for it. Please provide a list of those "facts" and the "scientists" that support your statement.

        March 29, 2012 at 6:45 am |
  41. clearfog

    I've noticed something. It may be trivial and the evolution scientists may dismiss it as such, but that will not deter me. In the course of evolution, animals get bigger and smaller, they get shells and lose shells, they get faster and slower, they become carnivores and then herbivores and back to omnivores. Nothing seems constant but one thing. Animals never get less intelligent. It seems that intelligence is never a disadvantage and therefore evolves in a one way arrow. I am unaware of any evolutionary sequence where the central nervous system gets less complex or smaller. There, I said it.

    March 29, 2012 at 4:01 am |
    • Epidi

      Good comment. I agree, capacity for intelligence is something that seems either a constant or has growth.

      March 29, 2012 at 4:08 am |
    • MarcusA

      There's nothing excluding the central nervous system from becoming less complex. Parasitic creatures downsize on most everything. Barnacles are crustaceans that have simplified down. There's no long-term goal in evolution, so intelligence isn't exempt from downsizing. It's probably hard to find an example among mammals, though, since intelligence has been a major part of their evolution.

      March 29, 2012 at 4:15 am |
      • Grant

        I think it would be hard to find in mammals because the CNS is too complex to determine if it is actually less complex from generation to generation.

        March 29, 2012 at 4:23 am |
      • clearfog

        Interesting. Are you saying that barnacles evolved from creatures with more advanced nervous systems? Which species? I agree that there is no long term goal, it is essentially applied probability theory. I suppose that since central nervous systems require energy, it is possible that a reduction in size would have an advantage in times of extreme environmental stress. This could more likely be true in passive filterers like barnacles who do not hunt, where intelligence would reap more resources. It is difficult to understand how higher creatures could so benefit, but I suppose it is possible. I therefore have to revise my theory. The overview is, however, that things are smarter today than in the past, some posters here notwithstanding.

        March 29, 2012 at 4:27 am |
      • Grant

        Here's a simple hypothetical example on how a higher species could benefit. Lets take two animals that primarily hunt by smell, I believe sharks are a good example. Now lets say a genetic mutation in the brain causes the olfactory area of the brain to expand into the "intelligence" area. The shark would now be less intelligent as before but it would be able to smell better to hunt better and possibly have an increased chance of survival. Even though it is less "intelligent". The trap you are falling into though is different though. Intelligence is a human developed term and you can't say another organism is less intelligent. For instance, a bacteria could say you are a moron because can't find food by chemotaxis. Organisms are exactly as intelligent as they need to be to survive.

        March 29, 2012 at 4:38 am |
    • SixDegrees

      You might want to take a closer look at parasites, then. They all evolved from more complex organisms – including those with considerable brain power – and have gotten rid of everything that isn't crucial to their host-dependent existence, including eyes, appendages, digestive apparatus – and brains. Many are little more than a mouth, an anus and a reproductive organ (or two, in some cases); brains don't serve much purpose, and get dispensed with like everything else.

      March 29, 2012 at 4:53 am |
      • Anon

        Just a question for the religulous:

        With identical twins, one developing human about a week after conception splits into two. Does this mean each only has half a soul?

        With chimeras, two fertilized eggs merge into one well after conception. Does this person have two souls? If not, where did the second one go?

        March 29, 2012 at 9:43 am |
  42. LIsa

    Could we not come to see that religion and spiritual inquiry seeks answers to things that scientific inquiry does not, and vice versa. My own faith does not have a big problem with evolution, for we believe that what makes us humans is the soul, the gift of a gracious God. Since souls cannot be excavated, it is not fitting to debate when and where they originated

    March 29, 2012 at 3:49 am |
    • Grant

      Of course we can, however religion seems to have an abundant number of people who ignore evidence because it doesn't match with their religious beliefs. Those people are so loud and obnoxious that it drowns out the religious people who are willing to understand and have a conversation about the actual science behind evolution and astrophysics.

      March 29, 2012 at 3:57 am |
      • Randy

        Grant – what is so loud or untrue to simply state – this article lies from the get-go that Lucy was a partial ape-human skeleton? That is a lie. Okay, you still with me? There is zero proof that we came from monkeys. Zero. The evidence found and provided from other finds actually has proven the opposites, the discoveries keep showing that there was an ape, and there was a human. Was that too loud for ya?

        March 29, 2012 at 4:00 am |
      • clearfog

        Not too loud, your CAPS lock was off. How was it a lie. Once again, you do not understand what you are talking about. A lie is an intentional untruth. Why would scientists lie? Theoretically, they could be wrong, and they will be the first to admit it. But liars? Do you think that evolutionary scientists from all over the world get together and agree to secretly adhere to an untruthful theory? Seems a bit paranoid to me. As to your proffered evidence, I am unaware of any. How about a citation to a peer reviewed article, not a citation to one of those creationist websites that are held in the highest disdain by real scientists.

        March 29, 2012 at 4:08 am |
      • Epidi

        In my religion – we humans are part of the animal kingdom – everything is connected – Great Spirit/God/Goddess has made it so. We are not so arrogant to say that everything does not have a "spirit" or "soul" but humans alone. It would seem to me that if an intelligent being did indeed create the universe and everything that is in it (including spirit) then it was done in a naturaly progressive fashion. It is exciting to learn new things – of course one shouldn't take everything at face value as often there are hidden, human agendas. It seems to me, those who protest and scream the loudest are those who fear for the collapse of thier egos & belief systems. It is not only human to admit when you may be wrong – but devine – is it not?

        March 29, 2012 at 4:16 am |
      • Randy

        Oh-Clear-Great-Fog!!! The article printed this – did you read the article??:
        " It’s home to some of the world's richest fossil and artifact sites, including the famous Hadar site. “Lucy,” the partial ape-human skeleton, was excavated at Hadar in 1974."

        “Lucy,” the partial ape-human skeleton <<<<<<<<<< is a lie. Understand??? Not a partial ape-human skeleton exists. Thanks for playing. Good day sir.

        March 29, 2012 at 4:18 am |
      • Grant

        We have DNA evidence, Biochemical evidence. When you do phylogenetic analysis based on our DNA it points exactly to that we came from primates. Please explain how the article lied and what evidence you have that is more conclusive than what the researchers have, that proves they are wrong in their analysis on the bone structure that would put it as a human/ape evolutionary step. While you're at it, explain how you believe evolution works.

        March 29, 2012 at 4:21 am |
      • Jason

        I keep seeing the same things on here regarding how we did not come from monkeys and there is no proof to that. This is true. Monkeys would be our cousins, not our grandparents. We are both primates, that branched off at roughly the same point of the ole evolutionary tree. Evolution is not simply one day becoming another species, it is the process of genetic mutation and natural selection that takes place over millions of years. A mutation occurs, it is either beneficial or not, if not it dies out. If it is beneficial it lives on to be passed to the next generation. Some time down the road another mutation that is beneficial appears and through natural selection is passed on. This process repeats until there have been so many changes the descendants can no longer reproduce with the original species that it mutated and changed from. Key word is from,not changed in to because the speciation of a species does not necessarily mean that the original has to become extinct. So we are not descendants of monkeys or chimpanzees, we are descendants with monkeys and chimps goriilas, ect from the same species of ancient apes, not to be confused with the apes you are thinking of right now. Also, no other primate is bipedal, to whoever mentioned that monkeys can walk on 2 legs, yes that is true, but they are not bipedal as a primary means of transportation, just because you can crawl doesn't mean you are quadrapedal.

        March 29, 2012 at 9:25 am |
    • damo12345

      No.

      March 29, 2012 at 5:09 am |
  43. dave

    I've seen plenty of people who look just like monkeys, it be rude for science to ask them for a DNA sample though.

    March 29, 2012 at 3:46 am |
  44. MashaSobaka

    I have many religious relatives who ask me if it pains my wee little heathen heart to look at monkeys (they mean apes, but they're not informed enough to realize it) and think of them as my long-lost cousins. They ask me if I feel horrible to think that I descended from some creepy-crawly that stumbled out of some primordial ooze millions upon millions of years ago. And you know what? I couldn't feel more the opposite. Religious folks can keep their magic tricks, their water-to-wine gimmicks and their corpses brought back from the dead. I look around at this frigging beautiful world, at the trees and rivers and animals and stars, and know that this is a grand cosmic accident, something that could just as easily never have been, and I wonder...who could ask for a greater miracle than this? We are so fantastically lucky to be here. I cannot think of a greater gift. And every time someone stumbles on a new skeleton, or just a few bones from one, that tells us more of our miraculous history as a species and as a planet, I am reminded of how miraculous, and how fragile, our existence really is. I pity the people who cannot see the beauty in this, who cannot just appreciate the universe for what it is and feel compelled to sully its perfection with some bloodied myths. I will leave you to cringe at the feet of your vengeful god. I'll take the stars over that nonsense any day of the week.

    March 29, 2012 at 3:08 am |
    • clearfog

      Eloquent and perceptive. I've heard it said that mind is matter trying to understand itself. The attempt did not stop with Genesis or Mark.

      March 29, 2012 at 3:34 am |
    • Epidi

      🙂

      March 29, 2012 at 4:19 am |
      • MashaSobaka

        🙂

        March 29, 2012 at 4:39 am |
  45. adrifter

    It gets so tedious to read all the religious nonsense in the comments section whenever there is a science story on this site, especially anything about evolution. Instead of an interesting exchange of ideas, we're stuck with religious loons defending absurd Bronze Age foolishness. Please, religious people, stick to the faith section of this website. You look foolish here and you offer nothing worthwhile to the conversation. I don't even bother starting a discussion with any of you. You have religious beliefs, which means you have closed your minds to any scientific facts or new discoveries which might challenge your worldview. Please go away. I know that's not going to happen, but I can always hope.

    March 29, 2012 at 2:58 am |
    • Grant

      Reglioua beliefs do no mean a lack of scientific knowledge. 7 percent individuals of the academy of science in the US have religious beliefs. The problem is when religion causes the person to block facts. Which doesn't mean religion is the problem it just means the individual is ignorant and doesnt want to aquire more knowledge.

      March 29, 2012 at 3:06 am |
    • clearfog

      They do contribute something. They add amusement to my otherwise mundane nighttime activities. Randy has been especially fun this evening. I have a vision of him muttering, sputtering, and banging away at the keyboard with blood pressure reaching the stratosphere. Maybe that the good can come from it is to expose the absurdity of the beliefs for those who might otherwise accept such non-critical thinking.

      March 29, 2012 at 3:13 am |
      • Randy

        Actually Fog – I'm sitting here making $80 an hour bored to death and having a particularly night raking in the dough laughing at your posts!!! I'm getting a vision of you though. I liked that you had the vision first. But mine is still of you watching the monkey tree dweller, yourself standing up watching with Lucy nearby on display, and then you all get fossilized and oh boy if you have your children with you – I would love to (and I may since I believe in Heaven and Eternity) get to watch as the "scientific" journal takes a part each foot and bone they find and decide who's you, the monkey and who's Lucy. Now that's still a very funny vision – which I posted more creatively than you yourself could come up with and had to copy some vision you have. No worries mate, making my near $1,000 OT I work for 3.5 more hours if you are still around.

        March 29, 2012 at 3:28 am |
      • clearfog

        Wow. I sure don't make that kind of money. Nosiree. I wouldn't want to take the pay cut. I had to quit – more accurately cut back on – my avocation as a professional gambler – hold'em, PLO, and blackjack, because my Chinese born wife was making even more money buying and selling Chinese antiques. The market is going through the roof. I am off this weekend to Hong Kong with appointments with Christies and Bonham's (could not get into Sotheby's this time). BTW, the Chinese have a history stretching back way more than 6000 years, the Garden of Eden notwithstanding.

        March 29, 2012 at 3:46 am |
      • Randy

        That's great Fog!! See, Christians love all you guys. If I were making the kind of dough you're making I sure as hell wouldn't be sitting at a computer having visions of other guys though : ). Go check on your wife man, I'm okay here.

        March 29, 2012 at 3:49 am |
      • clearfog

        Oh no, an attack upon my masculinity. I can't take it any more. Try Google to find Lawrence Revere (real name Specs Parson) who wrote Playing Blackjack as a Business or Doyle Brunson who wrote Super System. It could change your life. Well, not now, since the religious fanatics have outlawed online poker here is the land of the free. China lets me play, though. You with your loving heart support my right to gamble, right?

        March 29, 2012 at 4:17 am |
      • Epidi

        Randy, I'm not an athiest. But, you are an egotistical and pathetic putz, lol. The more you talk, the more foolish you sound.

        March 29, 2012 at 4:22 am |
      • Randy

        Epidi. I appreciate your compliments man. When you're a skydiver you tend to have to have something egotistical in order to jump out of planes for pure adrenaline. That you called me a putz reminds me of your religion and mother for some reason. But either way – I appreciate your compliments.

        March 29, 2012 at 4:58 am |
      • Randy

        Fog I wasn't attacking your masculinity nor lack thereof. You said you made tons of dough, and had said you had a vision of me sitting at my computer. When I said go be with your wife man – I mean go be with your wife, man. Not wife man.

        March 29, 2012 at 5:10 am |
      • jimstead

        Take a look at http://www.halos.com/
        It's kind of funny how those who are unable to prove the theory of evolution try to squash findings that support the creation account .
        True scientists will actually take "all" evidence into account, and sometimes have to adjust their previous conclusions.
        Most of today's "scientists" have been "brainwashed" into believing evolution despite a large amount of evidence supporting a young earth, as well as a worldwide flood. They have a "theory" to uphold/maintain, and all evidence must be manipulated or fabricated (i.e. Lucy) in order to support the cherished theory.

        March 29, 2012 at 9:00 am |
  46. Randy

    ajk68
    I hope you'll come back to post more on these findings as you're statements are right on. Evolution itself is not in question – it's the agenda that gets pushed with it – along with most people who are so vocal about evolution have no idea what you stated and how correct you are, even given your Scientific background. I love how you stated that science has a realm and it has no way of proving (or disproving) a supernatural element. To them, it is supposedly either black or white and anything that is anything – can be proven with science. If what they argued or true, and it stood with real authority – then where's the thingy that can measure what taste better coke or pepsi??

    March 29, 2012 at 2:36 am |
    • clearfog

      Randy, Coke and Pepsi? You are now entering the realm of pop science. Once again, you appear a bit confused. Science cannot prove or disprove the supernatural – most commonly referred to by scientists and philosophers as metaphysics – because, by definition, it cannot be proven by science. That is what the prefix of "meta" is for. Science cannot prove the existence of god because god, by definition, is metaphysical. Scientists do not bother with such things. Science cannot disprove the existence of god for the same reason. However, it can reduce the likelihood that such a thing exists. Note that people once believed that human ailments were inflictions caused by an angry god. Medical science has reduced the likelihood that that is true, but it could theoretically still be true. Maybe the angry god uses viruses and bacteria to inflict humans. But probably not. Science cannot prove it, but I recommend that you wash your hands instead of clasping them in prayer if you want to avoid getting sick.

      March 29, 2012 at 2:59 am |
    • MashaSobaka

      Randy, only religion believes in black-and-white answers. Science knows that everything can change as soon as a new discovery is made. It's troubling that you do not realize this.

      March 29, 2012 at 3:12 am |
      • Randy

        Science knows anything can change once a new discovery is made? This makes sense to you?? We're not talking debate over a changing future, the debate is speaking of an evolution that would have us all as monkey becoming human beings. Are you thinking that we might all become monkeys again someday??

        March 29, 2012 at 3:41 am |
      • Grant

        no because evolution doesn't work that way. Read a book on evolution seriously you have less biology knowledge than your average 9th grader.

        March 29, 2012 at 3:47 am |
      • MashaSobaka

        Randy, I cannot actually understand what you are trying to ask, or what your problem is with a practice that will admit that it was wrong if new evidence contradicts its current interpretation of the evidence.

        "We're not talking debate over a changing future, the debate is speaking of an evolution that would have us all as monkey becoming human beings." Please explain what on earth you meant by that before I attempt to respond.

        March 29, 2012 at 3:48 am |
      • Grant

        Don't bother, Randy has no understanding of how science works. Based on his comments, we should still believe the sun revolving around the earth, since that was "proven" before it was proven it was wrong.

        March 29, 2012 at 3:51 am |
      • clearfog

        Only some of us, Randy, only some of us.

        March 29, 2012 at 3:52 am |
      • Grant

        clearfrog, you can't say that because now he will honestly believe that evolution can "turn" you into something which of course isn't how evolution works.

        March 29, 2012 at 3:55 am |
      • Randy

        Thanks Grant!! I'm heeding your advice based on others' ignorance that keeps getting posted without anyone really knowing what they're defending any way when they do say "evolution" or what others are arguing by means of facts when we say "evolution." The "proved" and "not proved" type thing is funny though...very Monty Pythonish.

        March 29, 2012 at 3:57 am |
      • MashaSobaka

        Randy, "evolution" refers to the process by which species emerge by the process of natural selection, in which animals that are not fit for survival die off, the animals that ARE fit for survival live and breed, and the species begins to change over time as traits which are conducive/helpful to survival gradually become more prominent and traits which are detrimental/harmful to survival gradually disappear. THAT is what we are talking about when we speak of evolution. Explain to me where you're having trouble, because some pathetic little part of me really does want to help you.

        March 29, 2012 at 4:01 am |
      • Randy

        Uh oh ClearFrogger – "can't turn us into something cuz that's not how evolution works. I do believe you two just proved how everlution werks. Good show, good show!!!!

        March 29, 2012 at 4:05 am |
      • MashaSobaka

        Okay. Never mind. I'm going to need a translator who speaks your language before I attempt this.

        March 29, 2012 at 4:10 am |
      • Randy

        Masha – do you know the difference between micro and macro evolution? And by your statements, as I asked earlier – do you then believe that in a given period with correct timing – we as humans could possibly need to evolve back into apes? Wouldn't that be a plausible statement, I mean if it meant necessary for survival??

        March 29, 2012 at 4:12 am |
      • MashaSobaka

        No species ever evolves "back" into anything. Evolution only moves forward. But could we, over time, start to display certain traits that are currently more prominent in, say, bonobos or chimpanzees? Sure. Unlikely, but I don't see why it would be impossible. We do not descend from chimps or bonobos or gorillas – we only share a common ancestor with them – but if traits that they exhibit for some reason became helpful for us, and our genes mutated to give those same traits to us, thus making it possible through selective breeding for those traits to become more prominent over the course of a few thousand or few million years, then sure. We might start to show those traits with more prominence. ...Now, do you have a point?

        March 29, 2012 at 4:20 am |
      • Randy

        Yes Masha, the point is that genes do not mutate that way into another species. Have ever read on the E-coli tests?

        March 29, 2012 at 5:03 am |
      • ReasonableXX

        Randy – you have no understanding of how evolution actually works. Your ridiculous comments and challenges make that very clear. Furthermore, there is no such thing as micro and macro evolution. There is only evolution. Micro and macro are terms invented by creationists in a desparate attempt to cling to their outdated and irrational beliefs in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Small changes (your so called micro) that eventually lead to major changes ("macro") over an extrodinary length of time is what evolution is. It has been witnessed first hand in labs, supported by the fossil record, and confirmed via DNA mapping. Get yourself some books!

        March 29, 2012 at 9:35 am |
  47. clearfog

    Hey Azadeh Ansari, nice pun in the last paragraph. A foot brings us one step closer. Who says scientists don't have a sense of humor?

    March 29, 2012 at 2:28 am |
  48. ollyray

    I wish the truth has a tongue

    March 29, 2012 at 2:17 am |
    • clearfog

      It does, but it speaks a language that some people do not understand.

      March 29, 2012 at 2:45 am |
  49. clearfog

    Nothing enrages creationists like evidence; nothing soothes them like faith.

    March 29, 2012 at 1:52 am |
    • Randy

      WHAT PROOF??? NO PROOF OF ANY COMBINATION OF MAN AND APE HAS EVER BEEN DISCOVORED. LUCY WAS NOT PART APE-PART HUMAN. DO YOUR RESEARCH, IF YOU HAVE TROUBLE FINDING THE DOOR HANDLE, PICK YOUR KNUCKLES OFF THE GROUND AND USE ONE HAND TO TURN DOOR KNOB ON WAY OUT.

      March 29, 2012 at 2:01 am |
      • clearfog

        Nothing enrages a creationist like evidence.

        March 29, 2012 at 2:08 am |
      • Grant

        Please read a book on evolution so you can actually understand how evolution occurs. Humans and chimps have a common ancestor there were never any humanese ot chipans. That simple comment you made shows you have no understanding of the evolutionary process. Furthermore, your capitalization of theory means you dont understand what that means in scientific terms. Gravity is also a theory its called the theory of gravity, which you obviously know is not a lie. If you want to have an honest discussion about evolution actually learn about it first.

        March 29, 2012 at 2:48 am |
      • Mel

        The proof, if you would do some research or reading, may be found in the discoveries and understandings that research and investigation into DNA have given us. It isn't so much, anymore, the information and knowledge that the examination of bones and fossils have given us that confirm and prove the process of evolution, it is the scientific communities examination and understanding of DNA and how genes and other parts of that structure work. The proof is in the observation of the human embryo and fetus, it's growth and development. The way it starts out as a single and few celled organism and develops into a very complex multi-celled one that eventually becomes a human being. It's in the language that writes the DNA that records and describes the progression and changes that we have all passed through becoming who we are. Yes there are many spaces and holes in that story today. Those holes and spaces, as previous unknowns, will be filled in by our growing understanding of the language and ability to read the story. None of that negates or makes the story untrue. Our relationship to 'Lucy', to apes, to the fish that lived in the ancient sea and those that crawled out of it are written in us and there when we look. Just google some pictures of embryos and fetus.

        March 29, 2012 at 4:44 am |
      • Randy

        Mel, Your statements ring more true than others posted. However, you are helping me make my point more than disprove it. We are coded to become some THING, not someTHING else at randomness. Evolution does happen, didn't argue that it did. But the Darwin Theory Of Evolution does not just state that evolution occurs – its states a ...therefore we come from Apes. There is NO proof to that theory, nor have discoveries gotten us any closer to this becoming a reality.

        March 29, 2012 at 5:20 am |
    • Randy

      Nah Clearfog I'm asking you to offer "evidence" or "proof" and so you copy and paste text you've already written? That's not evidence, it's ignorance. Creationists love evidence. What enrages and Creationist (just going along with your simplistic term for now) is when an article is posted on CNN and an ignorant person who believes only in Darwin's THEORY of Evolution thinks this thereby equals evidence. Define proof and evidence...then let's continue.

      March 29, 2012 at 2:16 am |
      • clearfog

        I see you have calmed down a bit. CAPS lock was off and your insults have declined to a "simplistic" level. So then, let us define our terms, as recommended by Aristotle. Evidence and proof are not the same thing. You confuse the two. You also do not know what a scientific theory is. It is a paradigm which is capable of making testable predictions. As more predictions are confirmed by subsequent evidence, the theory becomes more certain. For example, the theory of evolution predicted that fossils would be found that showed a progression from tree dwelling apes to upright walkers. The evidence described in this article showed foot bones consistent with walking upright, but not as developed for that purpose as a human foot, and also smaller than a human foot but larger than a tree dwelling ape, another prediction of the theory of evolution because tree dwelling apes were smaller. This is what we call evidence. The theory of evolution has been once again supported by the evidence. Now, tell me about evidence that is contradictory to the theory of evolution.

        March 29, 2012 at 2:41 am |
      • Randy

        The "prediction" you are stating alone is absurd to think you can find three separate species, and upon doing so is "evidence" claiming your prediction – not about the whereabouts – but what the whereabouts would infer. If you are to visit a zoo, and watch a tree dwelling monkey, and you are standing up, and a volcano were to suddenly and amazingly fossilize you, the monkey and let's say Lucy had been on display nearby at a Museum of Science – I take it with your understanding – 3 million years from now it would be a could prediction that one of you three species had to have come first? Predictions are not just based on a whereabouts therefore found evidence (and especially UNFOUND) evidence – does not imply the predictions were ever proven to be any theory based on the standards you laid out. A better theory would be that "we knew long ago of a mountain that had the heads of 4 Presidents..." and after predicting the whereabouts they were able to locate some parts of it – could then determine this is Mt. Rushmore. The Darwinists have tried to fool the world that there is a Mt. Rushmore out there of the ape-become man, and no evidence leads there. And if you've read my previous comments – my first comment was to state that this article claims Lucy was a partially ape-man skeleton. Why is this part of a supposed Scientific finding – which you know is incorrect – NOT being addressed.

        March 29, 2012 at 3:12 am |
      • clearfog

        Your language is becoming unclear to my foggy brain. The bones were found both in a place and a time. The place was the area where many humanoid and ape species existed. The time was 3.4 million years ago. I suppose that if scientists found your volcanic zoo, they would be perplexed. Eventually, they would probably figure out that it was a zoo by the discovery of cages, walkways, etc. Lucy is an intermediate species between tree dwelling apes and humans, just as predicted by the theory of evolution. If you object to calling Lucy an ape-man, fine. More accurately, Lucy was its own species that had some ape like attributes and some human like attributes. Once again, Lucy is very good evidence that the theory of evolution is accurate and that the theory of Adam and Eve ribs mud and rib bone is not.

        March 29, 2012 at 3:27 am |
      • C. Shawn Smith

        Google "Darwin's Finch" to learn about evolution. It, in and of itself, is the most eloquent demonstration of evolution of a shorter time scale than traditional (long-term) evolution.

        Nature is RIPE with similar occurrences, based entirely on environmental change ... the main driving force, one could argue, in evolution.

        March 29, 2012 at 4:41 am |
      • Randy

        CloakFrog: Eventually, they would probably figure out that it was a zoo by the discovery of cages, walkways, etc.

        Here's where you lose "science" at all. Who's to say that any of the surroundings existed 3.5 million years later? They most likely would not. The real Lucy was not found all together, as some parts were found 150ft deeper nearly 2 miles from each other. That's a huge "if" as to trying to paste one thing/species altogether. Oh yeah – that's why the science community has debunked her being anything more than bipedal and not human, but an ape. Your ancestor I believe. Not mine!!!!

        March 29, 2012 at 6:13 am |
      • clearfog

        Who told you that parts of Lucy were found 150ft deeper and 2 miles away. Talk about liars. At least make up stuff that is credible.

        March 29, 2012 at 6:26 am |
  50. Phil

    boot funky light did exist before the stars
    http://pages.towson.edu/zverev/universe/Universe.htm#13 God gave Moses an explanation inline with Moses limited understanding.

    March 29, 2012 at 1:49 am |
    • Phil

      sorry parts of my reply got posted several times

      March 29, 2012 at 1:50 am |
  51. Phil

    hey boot funky light did exist before the stars
    http://pages.towson.edu/zverev/universe/Universe.htm#13 God gave Moses an explanation inline with Moses limited understanding.

    March 29, 2012 at 1:48 am |
  52. Phil

    hey boot funky and other believers and nonbelievers read before you open your mouth. light did exist before the stars
    http://pages.towson.edu/zverev/universe/Universe.htm#13 God gave Moses an explanation inline with Moses limited understanding.

    March 29, 2012 at 1:46 am |
    • Drew Dixon

      I don't see how evolution disprives the existance of God. It meerely shows that some parts of the bible were fiction. I mean did you really think Noah's Ark happened... or that Angles had babies with humans... I mean really people?

      March 29, 2012 at 1:49 am |
      • Grant

        It doesnt disprove god, anyone who says evolution does. Doesnt understand the implications of evolution. Its entirely possible there is a god that lives on a different dimension that we can't comprehend due to our possibly severely limited brain development. For instance, we can grow bacteria in a lab. The bacteria essentially live in a two dimensional world and have no idea we exist. It is entirely possible this same thing could have been done with earth as a test bed, and other planets as other test beds, if a god or for that matter an advanced species was using the planets as experiments. The problem is people can't dissociate god with evolution which makes having a reasonble conversation with creationists and young earthers impossible.

        March 29, 2012 at 2:55 am |
    • Drew Dixon

      I don't see how evolution disproves the existence of God. It merely shows that some parts of the bible were fiction. I mean did you really think Noah's Ark happened... or that Angles had babies with humans... I mean really people?

      March 29, 2012 at 1:49 am |
      • Randy

        Drew – the argument has already been stated – NO PROOF OF ANY COMBINATION OF MAN AND APE HAS EVER BEEN DISCOVORED. LUCY WAS NOT PART APE-PART HUMAN. DUDE, DO YOUR RESEARCH, IF YOU HAVE TROUBLE FINDING THE DOOR HANDLE, PICK YOUR KNUCKLES OFF THE GROUND AND USE ONE HAND TO TURN DOOR KNOB ON WAY OUT.

        March 29, 2012 at 2:00 am |
  53. Phil

    Hey bootfunky and the rest of you believers and nonbelievers. read a little before you open your mouths. light did exist befor stars see link below. http://pages.towson.edu/zverev/universe/Universe.htm#13
    If God had explained DNA and evolution to Moses, do you think he would have understood? O.J.'s jury didn't understand DNA evidence. God gave Moses a simplified version of creation in line with their understanding at the time. God didn't intend for the Bible to be a science textbook or science textbooks to understand God. Read Genesis closely and compare with a little open mindness to Scientific theory. After it's own kind, along it's own branch of evolution.

    March 29, 2012 at 1:40 am |
    • Drew Dixon

      Of course there was light before stars... the "big bang" was NOT any sort of beginning. It is part of a cycle of collapse and then violent explosion... similar in what we see today as a supernovae.

      March 29, 2012 at 1:44 am |
      • Phil

        Drew read a little more, Dark matter will eventually lead to total dispursement of matter not collapse.

        March 29, 2012 at 1:58 am |
  54. Randy

    I love when evolutionist try to argue on the solid foundation of "proof" when Dawin's Theory is still called ...??? Theory, right, correct. There is zero proof that has ever been scientifically proven that any "evolution" has benefited any given species; any evolution that's happened has been a negating of things where eyes may no longer be needed, therefore are not there – as opposed to super-sonic eyesight as "evolutionists" want to believe. The questions of language are very silly to even debate as none of speak the same way our grandparents did and we live with each other – the dialects change, words take on different meanings. As for races changing over time, weather, climate, indoor outdoor habiation, food choices, all of these things can easily cause people to gain color, lose color. If you can have two accents and two colors – you immediately have a case for trillions of races given the number of births have happened since time began. Who ever said Adam and Eve were not one white, one black? I mean are you that ignorant to not see things are possible that you cannot explain or prove?

    March 29, 2012 at 1:12 am |
    • Dave

      Thank you! At least there is some intelligent people!

      March 29, 2012 at 1:38 am |
      • Drew Dixon

        are** some intelligent people. You and Randy sure IS smart.

        March 29, 2012 at 1:40 am |
    • Drew Dixon

      Randy, evolution is occurring. Life did not begin on Earth. There is no form of consciousness after death. Sorry that I chose to learn from books based on research and not from books that are over 70% fiction.

      March 29, 2012 at 1:39 am |
      • Randy

        Drew, glad you can read. Who is denying "evolution" in the sense that it happens? In the sense that it creates or generates towards a "better" existence of a species is what's NOT TRUE. The Eels in the cave for example, lost their eyesight, again did not grow some x-ray vision. A horsefly in a patry dish read for this?? It grew extra wings?? And that made it...not be able to fly...therefore had this happened in natural science would have killed the horsefly off, not given him special. Powers. Thank you, drive thru please.

        March 29, 2012 at 1:57 am |
      • RB

        Drew, microevolution is occurring absolutely nothing more has been proven, only theory! Life did not begin on Earth (Sorry that I chose to learn from books based on research). There is no form of consciousness after death (Sorry that I chose to learn from books based on research). Sorry that I chose to learn from books based on research and not from books that are over 70% fiction. Every article that has not been observed or have solid evidence of truth is fiction? Than you realy need to get far away from the science books because a large part of your belief in science has never had any evidence but remains in the relm of theory! But what do I know? I still believe the Earth is flat as science once believed because I have never been around the world! One thing I do know! Science has far more proved the facts in the bible over the past several years than The Big Bang THEORY, the THEORY of Evolution and many other imaginative guesses!

        March 29, 2012 at 2:30 am |
    • Drew Dixon

      Like really humans and dinosaurs did not live together.... so did god come after he killed the dinosaurs and give us the gift of Adam and Eve? Really people... really.

      March 29, 2012 at 1:41 am |
      • burnz

        drew, I knwo you're trying but give it up.

        March 29, 2012 at 4:19 am |
    • abaker4402

      In science, a theory is actually a credible thing idea that has been scrutinized, and withstood said scrutiny. Theories can be observed (and yes, evolution is observable!). Do you believe in the theory of cells? This is the idea that cells are compartmentalized and comprise all living things. Or the theory of heliocentrism? This is the idea that the sun is the center of our solar system.

      March 29, 2012 at 2:21 am |
      • Randy

        I believe a theory is a theory. We don't teach theory of Algebra – do we?

        March 29, 2012 at 2:26 am |
      • abaker4402

        You learn mathematical theories.

        March 29, 2012 at 2:31 am |
      • Randy

        You just stated theories can be "observed" you'd do really good to read ajk68 post from earlier who clearly stated that in the accepted scientific us of hyposthesis, it needs to be able to also stand the test of being disproven. What theories are you suggesting we use in math? If it includs anything less than whole numbers, obviously we operate in the field of math at a necessary level to the decimal in which it is necessary. So a cup of flour is not a theory but a serious measurement. A ppmw water reading in a chemical solution is necessary, but only to the degree of parts per million. So, you infer that we learn mathematical theories...what are they??

        March 29, 2012 at 2:52 am |
    • MashaSobaka

      Gravity is also a "theory" in the scientific sense of the word. Why don't you jump out of your window and see if it fails you? Look, the issue is clearly over your head a little bit (which is made very clear by the fact that you do not know the meaning of the word "theory" when used scientifically), but suffice it to say that those of us who are capable of understanding the concept of evolution realize that there are entire libraries full of evidence in support of it. Your inability to understand why eels have not magically sprouted x-ray eyes does not mean that humans did not descend from a common ancestor that we share with the other Great Apes. The fossil record speaks for itself. We are continually finding new fossils and filling in new holes. Our understanding of our past changes every time we do so. The thing about science is that it can change its conclusions based on the evidence. Creationism and religion take the conclusion and then force the evidence to comply. I'm going to go with the practice that takes evidence into account. If this bothers you, fine. Go cram your head back into your rectum. At least you'll be quieter.

      March 29, 2012 at 2:57 am |
  55. Talexa

    This article is bs. "Lucy" was not part human part ape. What a joke from beginning to end.

    March 29, 2012 at 1:12 am |
  56. Randy

    Does anyone care that CNN lies on this article by calling Lucy a partial ape-human anything? That's not what Lucy was classified under. Anyone? At all??

    March 29, 2012 at 12:38 am |
    • EricMatthews

      I agree. Just another example of the media pushing what it thinks people want to hear.

      March 29, 2012 at 12:41 am |
  57. jack johnson

    They don't beleive in evolision, but Adam and Eve were the only people that God created. How then did we get all the different races. If man was created in God's image where did American Indian ,Africian Americians. Arabic come from?

    March 29, 2012 at 12:33 am |
    • EricMatthews

      My personal belief is that the races came from the time after adam and eve. with the sons of god that the bible talks about in Genesis. Perhaps These sons of god, who mated with women here on earth, are also known in other religions such as greek mythology, and the Norse gods, although there is no way to prove it so its just a theory of mine, but perhaps the nationalities came about from the Sons of God mating with women.

      March 29, 2012 at 12:40 am |
      • Joey

        Sounds like a wonderful fairy tale😀

        March 29, 2012 at 12:56 am |
      • jimstead

        The Sons of god (which included Noah) were essentially those who came from the line of Seth (Adam and Eve's 3rd son) who remained true to God. The Sons of men, were those who came from the line of Cain. There are many instances in the bible of where the "sons of God" refer to those are follow God, and sons of men are those who do not follow God.
        The "giants" that existed in that time were probably many in number. If you consider that prior to the flood that you likely had longer growing seasons, more land than water, food was probably plentiful. If many humans lived to be in the 900-950 year range, it would be possible for a longer growing season for them as well.

        March 29, 2012 at 9:15 am |
    • John-117

      Perhaps Adam and Eve had enough variation in their DNA that would later allow other phenotypes to show up down the line.

      March 29, 2012 at 12:40 am |
      • reasonablebe

        Yah, and they were really into incest apparantly. Incidentally where did the 'women' come from? Genesis mentions Eve, and her sons, no daughters.... if there were no other people, who were the women?

        March 29, 2012 at 12:51 am |
  58. EricMatthews

    The "theory" of evolution has too many holes in it to be believable. Why would hominids be the only species to change so drastically so quickly? Why haven't alligators or birds, or fish in the sea began speaking too? And evolution doesn't explain nationalities or languages either. Something happened to cause us, but the fact is we do not KNOW what it was, we just have a bunch of "theories" Many people do not like not knowing, so the choose the theory they like best, and then develop the smartest man in the room syndrome, that causes them not be able to be open minded on the subject, painful as that may be for them to realize, and also it is very difficult for anyone trying to have an intelligent conversation with them on the subject, because they have convinced themselves that they already know all the answers. Which is impossible to be sure, because the earth is over over 10 billion years old, and we only have any kind of recorded history going back 5 thousand years, so nobody alive KNOWS positively how humans came into being. To argue that you KNOW, really kinda makes you look like foolish, when you look at the facts.

    March 29, 2012 at 12:32 am |
    • prettygirlssuck

      I call troll.

      Nobody is this ignorant.

      March 29, 2012 at 12:50 am |
    • Gadflie

      Ok, is this guy kidding or is he really that ignorant?

      March 29, 2012 at 1:03 am |
    • cira22

      Actually, one person alive, Giorgio A Tsoukalos, does KNOW how humans came in to being. It was....ALIENS.

      March 29, 2012 at 1:13 am |
    • dana

      I'm sorry, but you're in error when you say there are too many holes in the throry of evolution. In fact, there has been no evidence to disprove the evolution theory, and finding have served to provide clarity and refinement to the theory. The "holes" you refer to are areas where proof of existing theory, or modification to existing theory has yet to be made. "Fine tuning" if you will. As a metaphor, consider where the practice of medicine was 150 years after Hippocrates penned his Oath. There is much to be learned, and much to know. If your feel your faith is being contradicted by scientific findings, consider that it is most likely the interpretation you've been given by your church, and perhaps that is what you should be examining. Peace to you, brother.

      March 29, 2012 at 1:14 am |
      • xXmasnaXx

        Good post, dana!

        March 29, 2012 at 1:45 am |
      • Randy

        Dana: The "holes" you refer to are areas where proof of existing theory, or modification to existing theory has yet to be made. "Fine tuning" if you will. As a metaphor, consider where the practice of medicine was 150 years after Hippocrates penned his Oath. There is much to be learned, and much to know. "

        "...existing theory has yet to be made." That sounds a lot like – NOPE, NO PROOF. I know you want it to sound as though we're just on the verge of finding it – just ain't found it yet. Well, we're on the verge of finding aliens I'm sure too.

        Nice try. Medicine as a science is nowhere near finding a "missing" link that doesn't exist. There is no proof for this missing link and over and over and over with each discovery pointing to the "this is it – the missing link" you're all let down to only find out you've found either an Ape or a Human...not a partial ape-human. At least you're sober enough to state you know facts, and can repeat them: "...existing theory has yet to be made." If only you could know them (facts) as they in reality are.

        March 29, 2012 at 2:23 am |
      • Primewonk

        Randy wrote, " There is no proof for this missing link and over and over and over with each discovery pointing to the "this is it – the missing link" you're all let down to only find out you've found either an Ape or a Human...not a partial ape-human."

        This statement serves to demonstrate your profound ignorance on the science of evolution. It's commonly seen in persons who choose to be ignorant and get their "sciency" sounding information from the "Pastor Dave's" of the world. The problem is that "Pastor Dave" is just as ignorant about science as his minions.

        March 29, 2012 at 8:41 am |
    • xXmasnaXx

      Yah, the Bible doesn't have any holes at all. Let's start with talking donkeys and a ship that can house every earthly creature. Or maybe a man in a whale? These people wrote with what they were given at the time, I'll give 'em that, but geeze... Really? Narnia is more convincing than the the tales in the Bible. The only thing the Bible ever got anyone, was land that "God" said to go kill all men, women, and children. How can you argue that? God said it, so let's do it! (oh, and btw, we get all their land! Yeaaaa!) GhEy!

      March 29, 2012 at 1:43 am |
  59. Gadflie

    Here's a fun one to ponder. It is obviously impossible to have both an omniscient God (or omniscient anything) and free will. You just can't have both for very obvious reasons.

    March 28, 2012 at 11:27 pm |
    • Rgeneration

      Yawn.

      You keep pondering. Meanwhile your great great great great grandpa was a chimp.

      March 28, 2012 at 11:54 pm |
    • Gadflie

      Actually, no. But we share a common ancestor. Sorry kid, the truth isn't insulting at all. Speaking of truth, you worship a mythical cosmic bully.

      March 28, 2012 at 11:59 pm |
  60. John

    Here’s a thought. Before we start criticizing geologists, anthropologists, physicists, cosmologists, and other scientists lets settle the argument of which religion and god is the true religion and real god.

    Let’s see, could it be Christianity (Catholic or Protestant… different bibles and Catholics pay close attention to the Pope for spiritual guidance), Judaism (different bible and don’t believe Jesus Christ is the son of god), Mormon (believe in Jesus Christ but have a whole additional new bible type book), Islam (different bible and don’t believe Jesus Christ is the son of god), then there is Hinduism, Buddhism, Shinto, Sikhism, Baha”I Faith, Jainnism, etc., etc., etc.,

    Now it’s not like people have been arguing about this for the past few weeks. People have been trying to figure this out for many centuries and still can’t prove which religion and god is the real one.

    If you could prove your religion and god were the real one, I mean really prove it…. then there would not be 7 or 8 major religions, there would only be one. But the facts are that there are many religions.

    So let’s leave science alone till we definitive convince everyone what the real religion and true god is.

    Good luck with that!

    March 28, 2012 at 11:16 pm |
  61. hubert39

    Yep...That looks like a bone in my foot.

    March 28, 2012 at 11:10 pm |
  62. hubert39

    Yep, that looks like a bone in my foot.

    March 28, 2012 at 11:09 pm |
  63. I Am God

    My children, evolution does not exist. Do not be fooled by the people that would lead you astray. I created the Biblical texts so you can spread my racism, prejudicial ways, and my hatred toward all of you children. Do not worry though for I will be there to save you when Armageddon arrives (if I am not drunk that is).

    March 28, 2012 at 10:30 pm |
    • Marc

      America is a great country. We have the right to say anything we want without fear. Even if it is crap no one wants too hear. Much like the garbage you just spewed! God bless you I Am God.

      March 28, 2012 at 10:54 pm |
    • soul rider

      I found my lost cousin finally.

      March 28, 2012 at 11:11 pm |
  64. Nancy

    I am really thankful for intelligent people like Andrew. Keep up with the quality posts.

    March 28, 2012 at 10:26 pm |
  65. Gadflie

    The Christian idea of God. Omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, etc. Means He is the most complex possible being. As such, He is the least likely answer to ANY question, including "how did the universe come around".

    March 28, 2012 at 10:22 pm |
    • rzzzll

      You mean the Jewish conception of Hashem, the Name, the Almight, ONE G_d not three. Omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, etc. are views formed in Judaism, not the heresy of "Christianity".

      March 28, 2012 at 11:13 pm |
    • Gadflie

      rzzzll, actually I was pointing out that the concept was laughable.

      March 28, 2012 at 11:26 pm |
  66. Me

    What a fanciful joke.

    March 28, 2012 at 10:15 pm |
    • Leave your Fantasy World...

      You mean the bible???

      March 29, 2012 at 2:08 am |
  67. Moncada

    In my view God set off all the ingredients to make life exist in the Universe, Evolution happened because of it. Again these are my beliefs.

    March 28, 2012 at 10:00 pm |
    • Dr Roddy

      G.K. Chesterton famously remarked, "Atheism is the most daring of all dogmas, for it is the assertion of a universal negative."

      March 28, 2012 at 10:11 pm |
      • ajk68

        You may need to explain that to our illiterate culture. I doubt most people have anywhere close to the philosophical background to understand the irony.

        March 28, 2012 at 11:16 pm |
    • Me

      No real evidence. Just bits and pieces that don't fit together if you look at the whole picture. Also, errors in evidence that have been exposed have never been taken out of the text books. If evolution is survival of the fittest then why are people here at the same time as apes and monkeys? Where are all of the many many claimed links that are supposed to be more evolved and fit than these. This is just one of the many many problems with the troubled waters of evolution. Good book to read, "The Troubled Waters of Evolution."

      March 28, 2012 at 10:20 pm |
      • Gadflie

        If you are here, why did your parents live after your birth? By what passes as "reasoning" in that underused brain of yours, this isn't possible.

        BTW, I've read that book. There is not a single argument in it, not one, that isn't either a logical fallacy or an obvious misuse of math.

        March 28, 2012 at 10:26 pm |
      • bananaspy

        If you have to continue to ask "Why are apes and monkeys still here?" after it has been answered thousands of times (we share a common ancestor with species we see today) then you clearly have a century-old view of evolution and need to pick up a book or two.

        March 28, 2012 at 11:34 pm |
  68. Fluttershy

    there is ONLY ONE type of human,that is is US,that GOD CHRIST JESUS made up.We didnt 'evolve' LOL.This is NOT a human,humans come in one size,one shape.

    You see,these 'scientists' are agents of SATAN who want to lead you astray. THis how is SATAN works in modern errors.

    March 28, 2012 at 9:53 pm |
    • Andrew

      Also, I would add that the world is flat!

      March 28, 2012 at 9:57 pm |
      • Fluttershy

        thanks,I forgot to add this,bless you!

        March 28, 2012 at 10:01 pm |
      • Andrew

        lol I can't tell if you're serious or not.

        March 28, 2012 at 10:04 pm |
      • Me

        Extremely ignorant statement.

        March 28, 2012 at 10:21 pm |
      • A. Nony

        Yes, the world is flat, and it lies on the back of a very large turtle, which in turn stands on the back of another very large turtle, which stands on the back of a third very large turtle. (It's turtles all the way.) And, the sun revolves around the earth. One question: if you were falsely accused of murder, would you accept exoneration by DNA evidence, or would you stand by your religious beliefs on evolution and go to Death Row?

        March 28, 2012 at 10:27 pm |
    • Grace

      Hmmmmm humans were on earth long before the world was created 6000 years ago according to religious tradition. Humans were here 10,000-20,000-40,000 years ago. Christ Jesus was born 2000 years ago, he didn't make humans millions of years ago. And as a Christian I still wonder who the sons of Adam and Eve married when there were no other people on the planet. The first family? Then it says in the Bible that they married the daughters of the land of Ham. So either there were more people here or else it was incest. Which we know is a no no. Anyway I wish we could go back 10,000 years and ask people if they knew Jesus. It's ok to believe, but dna shows us that we didn't walk with dinosaurs, that the earth is round and that it's impossible for 2 of every species on the planet to have been in Noah's Ark which was as big as a football field. IMPOSSIBLE! Sorry to burst your bubble. I believe in God, but he was around long before yours was.

      March 28, 2012 at 10:01 pm |
      • SPWeiberg

        A lot of the questions you brought up are in the Bible, just sayin', not even religious myself.

        You question knowledge from it but refuse to look for the answers in it, I'm glad you brought up the land of Ham but you should look a bit further.

        March 28, 2012 at 10:37 pm |
    • ksocreative

      great. another supposed "adult" who believes in imaginary biblical beasts. WHY ARE WE SO FKN STUPID!?!

      March 28, 2012 at 10:21 pm |
    • Fluttershy

      Okay,I AM NOT ignorant!!!!!!! I FELT these true GOD in my soul,and I live it everyday.THE BIBLE is true and I will never doubt it,ever!

      March 28, 2012 at 10:29 pm |
      • Really? A "true beliver"?

        So you pick up poisonous snakes on a regular basis, right?

        March 28, 2012 at 10:32 pm |
    • ... and you really belive that?

      How naive art thou?

      March 28, 2012 at 10:30 pm |
  69. mike

    If you are a creationist in this day and age and have access to a library or the internet, I'm sorry, but you are officially stupid and willfully ignorant. Have a nice day.

    March 28, 2012 at 9:37 pm |
    • mr T

      Thanks for the comments Mike. I guess I am an IGNORANTChristian but I still love you and all the other lost people on this site🙂

      March 28, 2012 at 9:48 pm |
      • S1N

        I once was lost, but now I'm found... thanks to that GPS that SCIENCE made possible.

        March 28, 2012 at 10:06 pm |
    • NorCalMojo

      This is ugly.

      I'm a believer in evolution, but it really doesn't matter enough to hate anybody for believing or not believing. If you're going to hate people, find a better reason than theories that have little or no effect on our lives.

      If you really need to hate a group of people, free yourselves from the modern day dogmas like political correctness. THAT is the puritanism of our times. THEN you'd be the cutting edge free thinkers you imagine yourselves to be.

      Hating on Christians is safe and cliche.

      There are far more deserving groups than Christians if you really look at the world objectively and scientifically.

      I'm not saying it would be right, but it would be a lot less wrong.

      March 28, 2012 at 10:44 pm |
    • Rgeneration

      Yup. And believing that your ancestor was a monkey is brilliant. If you go further back he was a rock. Clap clap. I applaud your beliefs.

      March 28, 2012 at 11:59 pm |
      • abaker4402

        Newsflash: You don't have to believe that your ancestors were monkeys to believe in evolution!
        What's so hard to understand about the idea that modern humans and other apes simply share common ancestry? We are not derived from chimps!

        March 29, 2012 at 2:37 am |
  70. FaithAlone

    Eureka...Finally that missing link and transitional species! Oh, but maybe not. With all the fossils found, don't you think you'd have found something a little more conclusive by now? To believe our eyesight or a bird's flight happened by accident is taking as much on faith as believing God created us as we are. Neither is science yet you evolutionists belittle anyone who doesn't believe as you do. As I was sitting in my chair, / I knew the bottom wasn't there, / Nor legs nor back, but I just sat, / Ignoring little things like that. (Hughes Mearns)

    March 28, 2012 at 9:37 pm |
    • Andrew

      What's not conclusive about this or other hominid discoveries? All they're saying with this is that there were other hominid species living at the same time as Australopithecus afarensis, and that this newly discovered species probably inhabited a different niche than A. afarensis (which is inferred by the divergent big toe, a trait seen in arboreal mammals).

      The idea of a "missing link" implies that evolution works in a linear fashion, which it doesn't. So you might be right by saying that there hasn't been a missing link discovered.

      March 28, 2012 at 9:47 pm |
    • Sharp

      I don't think you understand how this all works. These incremental changes don't happen by 'accident' they are a response by living things to the environment they find themselves in. It is flawed thinking to believe that a single creator God & science are incompatible.

      March 28, 2012 at 10:13 pm |
    • ksocreative

      @FaithAlone
      the problem with your statement and your argument is that you don't understand the Hall of Human Origins at the flippin Smithsonian has all the flipping transitional fossils anyone needs to know about. so annoying.

      March 28, 2012 at 10:25 pm |
    • Name that bone

      It looks like a bone from a chicken leg to me. Just to think... they had KFC way back then? Amazing...

      I wonder if they ordered fries with that?

      March 28, 2012 at 10:36 pm |
      • Inkpen

        No, they didn't have fries with them, or at least it's believed they didn't...they haven't found the transitional 'eye' of spud yet.

        March 29, 2012 at 12:54 am |
  71. Rev. M-kell

    There's only one kind of human left because we killed and ate the others! We're still doing it today except for the eat part!

    March 28, 2012 at 9:17 pm |
    • bspurloc

      no cuz they evolved to something else on the branch.... u know how every animal on this planet has done....
      or u r saying humans hunted megladon into extinction and trex?

      March 28, 2012 at 9:45 pm |
    • ajk68

      Speak for yourself. Urp!🙂

      March 28, 2012 at 11:20 pm |
  72. Greg

    Evolution is fact, it happens everyday. Creation is a one-time event that spawned evolution accept reality.

    March 28, 2012 at 9:10 pm |
    • bspurloc

      for the last 2000 years religion has had to concede it is wrong so man changes the book written by man to something closer to what science proved.... creatinoism is jsut another one of those CHANGES to try and feel good about knowing they are wrong yet again

      March 28, 2012 at 9:47 pm |
    • Me

      Unbelievable how that KGB agent was right. They really did use our school system to brainwash our country. Nobody checks out the facts for themselves any more. Be honest enough to thoroughly research the arguments against your beliefs. It is intellectual dishonesty not to do so. It is like the lawyer that only looks at the facts or points that will support his or her case. This is the situation with those who preach the false theory of evolution that by the way, Darwin decided was fanciful and illogical upon his death bed.

      March 28, 2012 at 10:25 pm |
      • Gadflie

        Ok, I'll bite. Give me a single argument against evolution that isn't a logical fallacy or a misuse of math. Just one.

        March 28, 2012 at 10:32 pm |
      • ajk68

        First off, let me state I am a Catholic scientist. I believe in some aspects of evolution but not everything the atheists would try to add on is scientific.

        From a scientific point of view, the problem with evolution is that it is not a falsifiable hypothesis. There is no experiment that one can run that disproves evolution. One can only disprove, with great difficulty, that evolution did not happen a certain way – but that is different than being able to disprove evolution did not occur in any way. What is needed is an experiment that could show evolution could not have occurred in any way. Since no such experiment exists, it is impossible to disprove the hypothesis of evolution. This means it is not scientific by our current understanding.

        The other problem with evolution is the distortion it imposes on the philosophical/theological/scientific boundary. Natural science (physical science) has physical nature as its object of study by way of physical experiments. When people start trying to say that science disproves the existence of God, they transgress the proper boundaries of science. Science cannot make statements about supernatural realities – it is not the proper object of study for natural science.

        The reaction against evolution is in opposition to the push by people who have a philosophical/theological agenda – generally naturalistic and/or atheistic. If proponents of evolution would stop using it to further an agenda, I think the hypothesis would meet with much less resistance.

        March 28, 2012 at 11:35 pm |
      • ajk68

        @Gadflie: I think it would take some refinement of what you mean by evolution to answer your question. "Evolution" is not just one hypothesis. There are lots of angles on it. So when people try to lump the argument into one all-encompassing theory, there is trouble.

        For example, there is a lot of contention among scientists whether changes happened gradually or in rapid jumps. These need be considered different hypotheses as the basic premises are so different. In gradualism (more in line with Darwin's original thinking), it is hard to explain the emergence of radically new organs and functions. With punctured equilibria it is hard to rationalize the size of the jump.

        March 28, 2012 at 11:43 pm |
      • Primewonk

        ajk68 wrote, "From a scientific point of view, the problem with evolution is that it is not a falsifiable hypothesis. "

        Evolution is a theory, not a hypothesis. You can falsify the ToE easily. To quote Haldane, " Fossil rabbits in the Precambrian,”

        The theory of evolution is now over 150 years old. In that time it has never been falsified. We frequently see people, who claim to be educated, or scientists, etc., who post that there are "problems" with ToE. Yet, for some reason, they never provide citations to peer-reviewed scientific research that shows these "problems".

        March 29, 2012 at 8:23 am |
  73. PerryW

    Strange how just one bone can lead people to make connections without any proof. No way to take a DNA sample but they say it must be linked to all humans. More species are extenct than we can imagine. Some could have walked upright but not kin to humans.

    March 28, 2012 at 9:06 pm |
    • Andrew

      It was more than one bone that they found, and they don't claim that the animal to which the bones belong are linked to all humans. The implications of this discovery are that there was at least one other species of hominid that lived contemporaneously with Australopithecus afarensis. These bones probably belonged to a hominid that is more like a distant evolutionary cousin than anything, and whatever species it was, probably died off (as is the case of most species in evolutionary history).

      March 28, 2012 at 9:18 pm |
      • Rgeneration

        Keyword in all this.... 'probably'. Way to go science. Probably this probably that. Till the next thing comes along. Maybe a toe next time, what say?

        March 29, 2012 at 12:03 am |
      • Nick

        Welcome to reality @Rgeneration! Scientists have error bars and say 'probably' and because we do not live in a clockwork universe where the state of any system can be known with arbitrary accuracy. For example, when you hear DNA evidence being used in a court case, the expert geneticist witness usually speaks of *probability* matches in the 1 in billions, trillions, quadrillions, and so forth. The more unique genetic markers they can find, the more zeros they can add to their level of certainty. However, I have never heard one explicitly say that there is a 0% chance of a random match in the population . You can run an experiment 1,000,000 times, but you can never be *absolutely* certain what will happen on the 1,000,0001st attempt. Like the old saying goes, "if scientists had all the answers, there would be no need for Theory, experiments or questions." Scientists are not psychics, but they can give you models to describe reality that you would be advised trust if you do not want to die in an easily preventible mishap.

        " Malcolm Muggeridge once said "we have educated ourselves to imbecility" "
        Yes, knowledge and wisdom are two different things. Tell me something I do not already know...

        I will take education over willful ignorance and religious dogma **every time.** When you have a lot of education, it becomes a matter of how you want to use it as a tool to make your life better.

        March 29, 2012 at 2:54 am |
    • Bootyfunk

      yes, it is amazing. people who dedicate their whole lives to studying bones. but you think they're wrong and you're right. and you probably haven't taken a single class on the subject. please, elaborate as to how they are wrong. please use facts/evidence to support your conclusion.

      evolution has given us a pretty clear picture of how the tree of life has grown to encircle our planet with the amazing and diverse life forms we see today. there are some pieces missing, and probably always will be - but the picture on the puzzle is clear. if we really want to find out where we came from and our place in the universe, it will be explained through science. science is the forensic team at the crime scene, piecing it all together.

      March 28, 2012 at 9:24 pm |
    • blessedgeek

      In the religious realm, people have gone to war over one single verse in the Bible. Perhaps, the Quran too. From one single verse, they spawn whole webs of human logic which the Bible expressly forbids.

      March 28, 2012 at 9:45 pm |
    • bspurloc

      it was 8 bones found in 2009 so they ahve been studying t for 3 years and determined by the knuckles size and location along with other things that.... oh never mind u didnt read this far into the article so u most certainly havent gotten this far... the ignorant cant be told anything as their parents already shrunk their brains to nothingness

      March 28, 2012 at 9:49 pm |
  74. angel611

    So they find a chicken bone from Bojangles, and now we have a new ancestor that climbed trees.
    LMAO HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
    They just get better and better.
    Like a little kid lying his way out of another lie.
    You would think at some point they would realize the whole man ape thing is manure.

    March 28, 2012 at 8:38 pm |
    • chibidw

      [Citation Needed]

      March 28, 2012 at 8:44 pm |
    • SteveInMN

      Multiple mutations are common/expected in any evolutionary procession – its happenining NOW, look around yourself – Asian, African, Caucasian, etc. as one obvious example.

      Hillbilly, much?

      March 28, 2012 at 8:47 pm |
      • Jason

        But their still human.

        March 28, 2012 at 8:54 pm |
      • Dennis

        Jason, THEY'RE still apes also.

        March 29, 2012 at 5:24 am |
    • ...

      You must be incredibly stupid if you think there's no way to tell the difference between a chicken bone and a human bone.

      March 28, 2012 at 8:51 pm |
      • Andrew

        Haha, as a student of osteology, I can assure you that the bone in the photo on this page is not from a chicken, nor are any of the bones elsewhere on the web of this discovery (as if this assertion is necessary).

        March 28, 2012 at 9:55 pm |
    • Andrew

      Don't believe in evolution? Don't take medicine or go to the doctor.

      March 28, 2012 at 8:55 pm |
      • Rgeneration

        Malcolm Muggeridge once said "we have educated ourselves to imbecility"

        March 29, 2012 at 12:09 am |
    • ralph

      If this is some religious thing you really should think. No where in the bible does it say evolution can't or didn't happen, in fact free will suggests that God may have intended for it to happen.

      Personally I believe in God. I believe a higher power set us into motion and allowed for us to, over time, perfect ourselves. He created us in his image, and over time, we grew to adapt to our physical modern world. And to support my theory look around the country... Asians, Blacks, Whites, Spanish, Indians. Some of them have unique physical traits, yet God created one Adam, and one Eve...

      March 28, 2012 at 8:57 pm |
      • jj

        Thanks, Ralph, for a reasoned approach to religion. Wish more of your brethren thought like this. Most religious people are so intolerant – and intolerable! Your view is so much easier to buy than a 4000yo earth, with a god that buried dinosaur bones to test our belief!
        But wait – is reasonable thoughts and posts allowed online???

        March 28, 2012 at 9:05 pm |
      • ralph

        more are thinking like me. We believe in God, but know that we will never understand him, and do not try. We do understand science though and believe it has a very special place next to god. I personally believe that God is the thing that binds the universe. In scripture it talks a little about it all. In the beginning there was the word, the holy spirit and the holy father. The word is the law of the universe. The holy father is the thing that created the first elements, and life is the holy spirit... a miracle in itself. My ideas may not be without fault... but I am confident in the end we will probably all be proved wrong when a Giant Cow says the Indians were right. Lol

        March 28, 2012 at 9:09 pm |
      • Bootyfunk

        the bible does not mention evolution, you're right. which seems strange since it's inspired by God and he's omniscient, you'd think he'd "inspire" the right answer. instead the book says people were spontaneously created through divine magic without having gone step by step over millions of years to get there. and read genesis. both accounts. genesis lists the order in which God supposedly created life. except the order is wrong.

        and the bible says there was light before a sun, also impossible, especially for life to evolve. the bible also says Noah took 2 of every animal onto a boat as God caused a great flood that drown every single other life form, aside from Noah, his family and their specimens. as ridiculous as this story is for a number of logistical reasons, it is supposed to have happened only a few thousand years ago. every animal would be inbred if ALL species were whittled down to just 2 specimens.

        i could go on about the evolution of languages vs. the tower of babel, the evolution of the universe vs. God putting them there all at once and them not being stars, just lights in the sky, etc. the bible conflicts constantly with science. the bible says the world is flat.

        it seems that people who desperately want to hold onto their religion in the face of facts/logic will make excuses for the bible/torah/koran and try to merge them with science. sorry. science and religion are at odds. one givens a logical, empirical explanation for how the world/universe came to be and one gives a divine magic explanation. they don't mesh. pick what your mind knows is true, not the imaginary friend in the sky fairy tale you were told as a kid.

        March 28, 2012 at 9:16 pm |
      • Ruderalis

        Bootyfunk has it right. There are many differences between the Bible and Evolution.

        March 28, 2012 at 9:57 pm |
      • ksocreative

        Hey, Ralph
        so.... if we're created in God's image, then i guess he has a big fat set of God balls ?
        and in what dimension does he don these testicles of outer-worldly proportion?
        and if we're perfected, who threw in the wonderful testicular cancer, prostate cancer, brain cancer and all the ailments and deformities that happen all across our species and the animal kingdom?
        and if we were designed in his image, then God must've looked a lot different during the 200 +/- million years of the age of the dinosaurs? huh?
        and so, if god created one adam and one eve, he breathed the universe out of complete nothingness and then had to BORROW A FREAKING RIB from adam to make eve?

        SIGH.....

        WHY ARE WE SO GULLIBLE?

        March 28, 2012 at 10:36 pm |
      • Frozen Tundra

        Really? So the all so powerful and perfect god of yours couldn't create perfect humans? Was your god in a hurry to finish creation in six days that it created an imperfect human that would evolve into a perfect one over millions of years without god's help is ok? My boss would fire me for doing a haphazard job. Perhaps we should fire god.

        March 28, 2012 at 10:59 pm |
    • Bootyfunk

      you just sound... ignorant.

      March 28, 2012 at 9:02 pm |
      • Ruderalis

        Some say ignorance is bliss. I want my cake and I'll eat it too.

        March 28, 2012 at 9:58 pm |
    • Truth

      Yes, Angel is mutating before our very eyes!

      March 28, 2012 at 9:06 pm |
    • TheHungerGames

      Ok well at least these people are off their a$$3$ and are doing something!

      March 28, 2012 at 9:33 pm |
    • bspurloc

      bojangles was a mouse... LOL so u jsut called him a chicken LOL how did u do that! OMG u so silly.... bojangles a chicken LOL omg.... wow! he be a mouse... duh

      March 28, 2012 at 9:51 pm |
    • Rgeneration

      Good one.....looking angel. They are gonna go nuts if they ever find a tooth.

      March 29, 2012 at 12:05 am |

Contributors

  • Elizabeth LandauElizabeth Landau
    Writer/Producer
  • Sophia DengoSophia Dengo
    Senior Designer