Fossils complicate human ancestor search
The skull of a possible human ancestor was reconstructed with a cranium found in 1972 and a lower jaw discovered more recently.
August 8th, 2012
01:00 PM ET

Fossils complicate human ancestor search

The family tree of humanity as we know it - Homo sapiens - isn't as straightforward as "one species gave way to another." New evidence suggests that at least two different Homo species lived in Kenya about 2 million years ago.

Scientists report in the journal Nature that they have linked recently discovered fossils with a controversial cranium found in 1972 in Kenya. They believe these new remnants belonged to the same species as the skull, which has been dubbed Homo rudolfensis. The study is led by prominent paleontologist Meave Leakey.

The Homo rudolfensis skull, found near Lake Turkana, has a bigger brain case and a flatter face than specimens of Homo habilis, the other species of the Homo genus that appears to have lived around that time. Homo habilis is thought to have been a toolmaker because its hand bones were found next to stone tools.

It has been evident for a long time that there were several contemporaneous Homo species present in this area of Kenya called Koobi Fora, said Ian Tattersall, paleoanthropologist and curator at the American Museum of Natural History in New York, who wasn't involved in the study. This study helps confirm that, he said.

But some scientists not involved in the study said there is not enough evidence to claim that the new findings, together with the 1972 skull, represent a distinct Homo species.

Lee Berger, paleoanthropologist at the University of the Witwatersrand in Johannesburg, South Africa, called this argument based on associations of a few fossils "weak." He said in an e-mail that the fossils should also be compared to other potential human ancestors, such as Australopithecus africanus and Australopithecus sediba.

"East Africa is not an island," Berger said. "One must use the whole continent's evidence for human origins in such an important argument as the question of the origins of the genus Homo."

Ancient fossils question human family tree

The new fossils consist of a face, lower jaw and fragmentary lower jaw of different ages, none of which is quite as old as the first Homo rudolfensis specimen. These new fossils are believed to be 1.83 million and 1.95 million years old. They include a face that is "incredibly flat," as there is a straight line from eye sockets to where incisor teeth would have been, said study co-author Fred Spoor of the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig, Germany. The cheekbones on either side of the nose are far forward, contributing to that flatness. The incisor teeth are in a straight line, he said.

All of this information allowed the researchers to do a virtual reconstruction of what the head of a member of this mysterious species would have looked like.

Leakey, of the Turkana Basin Institute in Nairobi, Kenya, said the differences between this species and what we've known previously are "more extreme than you would expect" and are not merely regular variations of the same species. The skull's straight profile is distinctive, she said.

The environment in this area is very windy, sandy and extremely hot today, but it would have been less hostile 2 million years ago, Leakey said. Lake Turkana was a lot larger, and there was more vegetation, so there was more opportunity to eat different types of food. And even if Homo rudolfensis and Homo habilis lived around the same time, they may not have known one another.

"We can’t say they were standing next to each other and could shake hands," Spoor said.

Whether we descended from the species of these ancient creatures is unknown. There could be some other, yet undiscovered species from around this time that is a more probable ancestor.

Bernard Wood predicts, in an accompanying article in Nature, that by 2064, "researchers will view our current hypotheses about this phase of human evolution as remarkably simplistic."

Post by:
Filed under: Human ancestors • On Earth
soundoff (1,058 Responses)
  1. Planner

    HMMM, sounds like folks have been watching re-runs of Battlestar Galactica.

    September 11, 2012 at 11:59 am |
  2. ARKEY

    what came first, the chicken or the egg?

    September 8, 2012 at 12:12 am |
  3. dentont

    that skull looks strangely like this guys head sitting next to me at the bar last night! Maybe that explains the bud light he was drinking

    September 6, 2012 at 4:13 pm |
  4. harvueke

    Every time the scientists think they about have it figured out, they discover they have been barking up the wrong tree by making a new discovery. The only way to know for sure is to invent a time machine and go back into time to see it for yourself. But then you would have to do it in a manner than you couldn't change a single thing because if you did nothing would be the same today and you might wipe out our existence.

    September 4, 2012 at 10:10 pm |
  5. Sagan

    Long ago, ancient aliens landed on earth searching for minerals valuable to them. At some point, the ancient aliens laid monster piles of crapp. Those piles of crapp eventually grew into humans. The different races were formed by the different foods the individual aliens had eaten prior to pooping.

    August 30, 2012 at 12:11 am |
  6. Davehuckle

    We will never know the actual full history of mankind. We have to always rely on the tidbits (fossils) that we find and then make our own conclusions.

    August 29, 2012 at 10:33 pm |
    • P. C. Allende

      GOOD STATEMENT, THAT IS THE REALITY.

      September 11, 2012 at 6:59 pm |
  7. Poltergiest

    Just left overs from the last reaper invasion.

    August 26, 2012 at 7:21 am |
  8. TopView20

    I have no doubt that earlier human civilizations were advanced. As for the wild extrapolations included in this blog, I must reference dear Albert Einstein who observed, "stupidity is infinite."

    August 23, 2012 at 8:43 pm |
    • John P. Tarver

      That was right after Einstein published Relativity and canceled the big bang.

      August 31, 2012 at 7:42 pm |
  9. Gilgamesh

    Loving the comments. Can't read them all, since I've got to go pray to my deity of the month and then watch the last episode of "Ow My Balls". Then make some more tin foil hats.

    August 23, 2012 at 3:43 pm |
  10. Native American

    The world has been destroyed 4 times before, and it'll be destroyed again; that's the reason our brothers, the Aztecs, have in their calendar that we are in the fifth sun and we are the sons of the fifth sun, and our cousins, the Mayans, predicted that the world was going to end at the end of the fifth sun, which is on December 21, 2012.

    August 23, 2012 at 12:42 pm |
    • Gilgamesh

      Wonder if should stop paying on my mortgage...

      August 23, 2012 at 3:45 pm |
    • TopView20

      You are almost entirely correct. One of the Mayan cyclic calendars includes the "end date" of 12/21/2012. The date is the final date of the calendar cycle, which continues on afterwards. Popular misreporting and ruminations have commonly misidentified that date as the Mayan "End of Time." That is not what the Mayans believed. That being said and acknowledged, the Mayan calendars still commands awe and demands further investigations. I would love to keep the public away from this issue until we have more sound scholarly conclusions and accurate insight into this central theme of the Mayans. They were a fascinating and mysterious people. They deserve to be understood and respected for their wisdom.

      August 23, 2012 at 8:57 pm |
  11. serpentfire666

    For those who are curious about intervention theory, ancient aliens, past civilisations etc etc and sick of being beaten over the head with the bible.

    http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/

    http://www.joyofsatan.org
    http://www.exposingchristianty.com

    August 22, 2012 at 5:10 pm |
  12. Mohamed Al Hashimi

    In the Quran, our god said he switched some humans to monkeys and that is the truth no the opposite !

    August 22, 2012 at 6:09 am |
    • Mohamed Al Hashimi

      not the opposite like the theory of human revoulation !

      August 22, 2012 at 6:11 am |
    • fimeilleur

      And the Blackfoot people of North America claim that Pani is creator of the world, and that the beaver is the only animal brave enough to gather the earth from the bottom of the sea floor to make the landmass that humans are able to stand on. What's your point? Every civilization has had a creation story... doesn't mean that any of them are true.

      August 23, 2012 at 3:59 pm |
  13. watsupwatsup

    if there wasn't a creator why do we feel the need for an explanation of one lol plus the oldest human skeleton found with human DNA is only 7 thousand years old mmmmm...

    August 20, 2012 at 2:12 am |
    • fimeilleur

      You seem to be making lots of assertions without much evidence to back them up... I guess your claims can be summarily dismissed...

      August 23, 2012 at 3:56 pm |
  14. Deployed

    I wish I had more time on my hands to comment on creation and religion. However, I am busy defending your freedom to dispute on this alien network page.

    August 19, 2012 at 11:57 pm |
  15. Phoenix

    God or evolution or a combination of the two. I have no set opinion but I find it hilarious that the “scientific” community develops all these theories about humankind’s origins with a handful of bones. They have NEVER found a complete skeleton of any so called ancient pre-human. It only ever been a bone fragment or two. Not real evidence to my mind yet we teach it as fact to the generally uneducated population. Why not say we don’t know where we came from yet? There is no shame in admitting we still have a lot of investigating to do.

    We also have some serious growing up to do. We stare at blatant signs of sophisticated technologies, pyramids in both Egypt and South America, monuments we could not reproduce today without massive machinery and try to explain them away as slave labor. Arrogance has us insisting we are more intelligent today than our ancestors. Civilizations rose and fell in the ancient world it possible of few of them were highly sophisticated in their technology. Their technology may have looked very different from ours but clearly they had develop sophisticated engineering, mathematical and astrological knowledge.

    August 19, 2012 at 10:09 am |
    • peridot2

      Fantasy with no evidence to support your theory.

      August 19, 2012 at 12:01 pm |
      • peridot2

        The Pyramids were constructed using slave labour, ropes and ramps. Look at the side of the Pyramid at Ghiza, you can see the ramps from the side. Ropes and pulleys and levers were used.

        There's no conspiracy of cover-up of previous great mechanical achievements, give a reason for a cover-up that makes sense.

        Guess what else has been found? Atlantis has been discovered. That's right, Atlantis is found. It was destroyed by a tsunami on the coast of Spain.

        Some of us feel fortunate to live in such a time when these archaeological finds have been uncovered. Others seem to live in a state of fear and mistrust. Perhaps it's pathological?

        August 19, 2012 at 12:09 pm |
      • Ashis

        Read Sanskrit Vedas, Puranas, Bhagabat Gita. Human have been in this earth million million years. Darwin Theory is a fairy tale.

        August 20, 2012 at 4:57 pm |
      • fimeilleur

        @Ashis,

        So one culture claims humans have been around for millions of years, we actually have evidence to support the existence of human presence on earth for about 100,000 years. We do have evidence of Dinosaurs being on earth up to 65 million years ago, but no humans, so please claim your Nobel prize and present your evidence of human life on the planet between these two dates. Thanks.

        August 23, 2012 at 4:06 pm |
      • TopView20

        It would be very difficult to identify substantial physical evidence of human arrogance, especially when such a notion is essentially contrary to modern societal beliefs. We need not identify specific examples of particular technologies in the ancient world. There is evidence of highly advanced mathematics, engineering, philosophical and rational reasoning, etc. of past civilizations. Furthermore, the evidence that we do have from the ancients is only the slightest hints of what truly existed in those times.

        Remember that we too are human, and subject to all the frailties of our species. The vast majority of people prefer to believe that we are the crème de la crème, and not subject to our limitations. We simply do not take into account our inherent short-comings. Therefore, there is little interest in proving ourselves “wrong” on a tremendous scale.

        August 23, 2012 at 9:34 pm |
    • P. C. Allende

      Wow,,,,,,,,, how little had you read to make so a big statement, like a literate man or close to GENIOUS. Did you use literature from any specific and recognized religion to come with that hypothesis? Santa Claus story is more credible that your script.

      September 11, 2012 at 7:12 pm |
  16. amandez

    "Take your stinking paws off me, you damned dirty ape."

    August 18, 2012 at 11:54 pm |
  17. Mohamed Al Hashimi

    The correction and fact of theory of human evolution is in the Quran that the god switched some humans to monkeys not the opposite and that what Muslims believe ! thank you

    August 18, 2012 at 3:25 pm |
    • fimeilleur

      You can beLIEve all you want about the Koran, the scientific community only cares about what you can demonstrate. Peace.

      August 19, 2012 at 5:50 pm |
    • P. C. Allende

      Very respectful, but very wrong, as the story of Adam and Eve at the gar............ If someone of the readers can paint the story or make it up in form of more spiritual we will go back to the Norseman, Vikings and Greek legends of creation of the world by deities.

      September 11, 2012 at 7:32 pm |
  18. Jason

    The Planet we live in goes thru natural cycles some even stated that earth's magnetic field changes
    Evidence suggest that Africa as we know know used to be Lush green environment

    Humans , modern day humans will reset to stone age once the technology we cherish is destroyed by a global calamity

    The computers, iphone playstations etc cars will be useless, imagine in calamity all the scientist you worked on microchip perished or electronics , can a normal joe , recreate a radio ? even

    These things will become stories , then popular stories , then legends , then myths

    We have not achieved much we can't even colonize moon or mars

    Meteor hits oceans , the tsunami will clean away all land and buildings we know it , cover it up with 100 feet of rubble and over time vegetation will grow and any evidence of civilization will disappear

    August 18, 2012 at 8:41 am |
    • peridot2

      The average poster on these boards would fail at those tasks...but some of us could do. Would we be able to save civilisation? Who knows the answer?

      August 18, 2012 at 5:53 pm |
  19. Kevin

    What concerns me the most are all the hateful comments and banter on here about both sides that can't be proven or disproved. Regardless of your personal beliefs, why can't we all agree that we're only here for awhile and we should enjoy it. Love. Life, and all that jazz. Go out and better your world, for yourself, your kids, for the stranger next to you. Stop hating and forget about definitions, theories, facts, and b.s.. I once had a 6 year old ask me about religion, and if it's why we have war. She was so much more intelligent than most anyone posting on here. And she couldn't understand why anyone would want to hurt another. It's not about God. It's not religion. It's free will and choice. It's about each person choosing to use their moments to hate, and fight, and hurt. You still don't know what I believe in, or don't believe in, but you know that I'm ashamed for all the bad...and yet...I still look to and enjoy all the greatness I know and have seen in people, too.

    August 16, 2012 at 12:18 pm |
    • fimeilleur

      So... what exactly is your position? That we should all just get along? Let people be lied to their entire lives? Is it not more important to have accurate information? Or information that makes you feel good? And yes, science can make mistakes, but it is it's ability to make corrections that we find it's strength. Science deniers (creationists) are unable to make these changes See below for the post about the Bob Jones University biology textbook...

      That is why we fight them (creationists), because we feel it is detrimental to the youth and nation to allow these lies and absurdities to stall man's progress and advancements. If it hurts your sensitivities, we apologize, but we won't stop.

      August 19, 2012 at 6:00 pm |
      • peridot2

        Yet it's never occurred to you that you cannot fight a belief system?

        Why am I still receiving these notifications?

        August 19, 2012 at 8:42 pm |
  20. Bible Clown©

    The little fingers on my feet say you guys need to pay more attention to Darwin than to some old book.

    August 13, 2012 at 11:02 am |
    • John P. Tarver

      Species occur rapidly folowing a mass extinction, the opposite of evolution. Peddle your racism elsewhere.

      August 31, 2012 at 7:44 pm |
      • fimeilleur

        Cite your evidence or get off the blog.

        August 31, 2012 at 9:38 pm |
  21. out of the Future!

    I really believe all this is a one time thing. A no frills ride, one in which we are always learning, and passing down to our children, and what looks like vistors from other planets, universes...are really our relatives that are: vacationing, studying history or whatever....but the reality is that they are out of the future.....maybe 10,000 years out of the future. Beings that are our childrens childrens childrens down the line....still being born and dying, and visiting us. In 10,000 years people will evolve alongside computers, and will jointly be able to explore the "real" past without any problems.

    August 13, 2012 at 8:41 am |
  22. james

    atleast they didn't put the fossil in texas and called it a white ape

    August 11, 2012 at 10:50 am |
  23. PEACE

    For those of you who openly shared your opinions without enforcing your believes or will onto others, you are appreciated. For those of you who put others down for their belief or theories, shame on you. If any of you were wise, you would know that as humans, we are individuals who have all right to be who we wish to be, believe what we wish to believe as long as it does not cause harm to others or belittle their individuality in any way. This is not a right given to us, this is HUMAN RIGHT. Just because you don't believe it, does not make it wrong. Here is a fact for everyone. We KNOW very little. Most scientists and historians and the like ASSUME, often being corrected later by someone else with better knowledge and technology. Scientists work in THEORY, PROBABILITY. Evolution is still very much a THEORY... and face it, if we don't even know where we came from FOR FACT SURE... then we know truly know nothing. Everyone needs to accept that we can only be sure of what we can make sense of right now, and many will defend themselves out of fear of being wrong. Please get along people. If humans should be concerned about anything right now its learning to get along with each other and accept each others differences and stop imposing personal beliefs on others. Any of us know anything ONLY BECAUSE OF BOOKS OF INFORMATION THAT HAS HAVE BEEN CHANGED OVER THE COURSE OF OUR EXISTENCE. I will accept your lack of belief if you can accept my abundance of it. Please evolve. Peace.

    August 10, 2012 at 11:45 pm |
    • fimeilleur

      While I appreciate your sentiment, please don't confuse scientific theory with the common definition of theory (hunch or guess). A scientific theory is the highest elevation of observable facts... it is the sentence that BEST describes a phenomenon at this moment in time. For example... gravitational theory, or germ theory. You never hear or see the fundies up in arms stating that gravity is a trick meant to deceive us... or that germs were described in the bible as "demons" therefore proof that the bible is true...

      I can accept your abundance of belief if you can justify why I must abide by the rules your god imposes on me... ab.ortion, stem cell research, gay marriage, and all other silliness that is going on in the US and the world today.

      At least science is honest enough to admit it's mistakes, re-evaluate it's positions and correct for accuracy. Religion cannot... don't believe me? Ask any one of the 38,000 branches of Christianity...

      I can accept your abundance of belief if you can justify why I must abide by the rules your god imposes on me... ab.ortion, stem cell research, gay marriage, and all other silliness that is going on in the US and the world today.

      At least science is honest enough to admit it's mistakes, re-evaluate it's positions and correct for accuracy. Religion cannot... don't believe me? Ask any one of the 38,000 branches of Christianity...

      August 11, 2012 at 12:47 am |
      • TG

        Because of the religious follies or wrongs that many, though professing being a "Christian", commit, such as abortion, supporting gay marriage, lack of love, stealing, etc., it is not the Bible that is at fault. Rather, it is the misguided teachings of the churches (now over 41,000 denominations, according to the Atlas of Global Christianity of 2010), who have not followed in Jesus "footsteps".(1 Pet 2:21)

        Jesus, before giving an illustration concerning how to determine a genuine Christian (Luke 6:47-49), said to those who are counterfeit "Christians": "Why, then, do you call me ‘Lord! Lord!’ but do not do the things I say ? "(Luke 6:46)

        Many of the the doctrines the churches have espoused are not accurately based on the Bible, but are an assemblage of man-made traditions and wrong religious thinking, basically lying about who God is and what is right and wrong from his standpoint. These even have hidden his unique name of Jehovah.(Ps 83:18)

        August 11, 2012 at 4:57 pm |
      • fimeilleur

        @ TG, Do you really want to quote scripture to me?

        EPHESIANS 1:4-5 Despite all of Jesus’ instructions to accept him as savior, Jesus also says God "predestined" those will be saved according to His pleasure.

        It doesn't matter if you accept Jesus as your savior... your god already chose the ones he is going to save.

        1 PETER 1:20 Despite God’s failed experiment in the Garden of Eden, the mass execution of Noah’s flood and the final solution of Christ’s sacrifice, Jesus was predestined to be crucified all along. "He was chosen before the creation of the world,"

        Pretty sick plan this mental midget came up with from the start.

        August 12, 2012 at 12:02 am |
    • Kevin

      Yes.

      August 16, 2012 at 12:20 pm |
  24. Dan Slaby

    It's important to think about how much variability plays in speciation and that variations may not necessarily indicate a species (a separate lineage that does not allow inter-breeding). Human populations were often small and we don't know how much inbreeding occurred to result in particular variations being expressed.

    August 10, 2012 at 3:58 pm |
  25. ashok

    One person reminded me of his mother

    August 9, 2012 at 9:05 pm |
  26. Don't Believe the Hype

    Myths and Misconceptions about Evolution

    1. Evolution means that everything came about by random chance.
    a. Natural selection is not random – it is an organizing/sorting process.
    b. Mutations are largely random, but they are only one component of evolution.
    c. Evolution occurs as natural selection favors certain traits within a population, causing some traits to become more or less common in future generations.

    2. Evolution means that people came from monkeys
    a. Evolution means that every organism is related to every other organism at some point in their evolutionary history.
    b. Humans came from earlier humans – numerous hominid species existed between modern humans and our pre-human ancestors.
    c. Our common ancestor with monkeys existed over 50 million yrs ago.
    d. Apes are our closest living relatives, with a common ancestor around 7 million years ago.

    3. If people came from apes, why are there still apes?
    a. For the same reason that, although many Americans came from Europe, there are still Europeans.
    b. We did not come from any modern apes – chimps and gorillas are our distant cousins, not our ancestors.
    c. Modern apes and humans shared a common ancestor that was neither strictly an ape nor a human. The recent description of Ardipithecus ramidus indicates it may be close to that common ancestor.

    4. No one has ever seen a new species arise.
    a. Many people have the mistaken impression that new species come into existence when an individual suddenly gives birth to an offspring so different that it is a distinct species. This is not at all what is suggested by evolution. Throughout the entire process, no individual was ever a different species than its parent.
    b. New species actually have been identified among organisms that reproduce very quickly (fruit flies, bacteria).
    c. Several living plants and animals are good examples of speciation in progress (primrose, Ensatina salamanders, orcas, blacktip sharks)

    5. There are too many gaps in the fossil record.
    a. There are indeed gaps in the fossil record, and there always will be because fossilization is a rare phenomenon. There are gaps in any historical record.
    b. Still, the fossil record is fairly continuous and new discoveries are constantly being made – literally hundreds of thousands since Darwin worried about gaps.
    c. Modern genetics provides an even more thorough record of evolutionary change.

    6. There are no transitional forms.
    a. There is no nice way to say this, but people who make this claim are simply lying or have been misinformed by lies.
    b. Every individual is a transitional form – you are transitional between your parents and your children. Small-scale transitional forms abound.
    c. Examples of large-scale transitions are also well-known – Archaeopteryx, Tiktaalik, Ardipithecus, Ambulocetus, Therapsids, Eohippus are a few examples.

    7. Evolution is only a theory.
    a. In science, theory is not a guess or a hunch, it is an explanatory framework that is overwhelmingly supported by the data.
    b. Theories are never tested or proven, they are not less valid than facts – they are made up of facts, and they never become “laws” – they explain laws.
    c. Evolution is on equally solid ground as other scientific theories such as gravitational theory (gravity), heliocentric theory (earth orbits the sun), germ theory (disease is caused by germs), atomic theory (matter is composed of atoms).

    8. Evolution means that the universe started with the Big Bang and that life arose from nothing.
    a. Evolutionary theory does not address the origins of the universe or even the initial origin of life.
    b. Those are valid scientific questions, but evolution only describes how populations of living things change once life came into existence.
    c. No scientific theories propose that something came from nothing.

    9. Most fossils have proven to be fakes.
    a. Again, this is simply dishonest. Critics of evolution are fond of citing Piltdown Man (a human skull with an ape jaw) or Nebraska Man (the tooth of a fossil pig). These frauds were actually exposed by scientists. No legitimate scientist accepts those fossils, and they are not relevant to the validity of the millions of fossils discovered before or since.

    10. Evolution is just another religious belief.
    a. Evolution, as a science, is based upon testing ideas against evidence. It is based upon the same science practices that have led to the gasoline engine, modern medicine, nuclear power, computers, etc.
    b. Although people believe in some aspects of scientific ideas that are conjectural, the extent that those will be fully accepted will be based upon testing and observations, not faith or dogma. Nothing in science is accepted on faith.

    11. Many scientists do not accept evolution, evolution is a “theory in crisis” and we should “teach the controversy.”
    a. While scientists may debate the ways in which evolution works, there is no legitimate controversy among scientists as to the validity of evolution. A survey of professional life and earth scientists found that 99.8% accept evolution. Any controversy about the validity of evolution is social and political, not scientific.
    b. The myth of a controversy in science is fabricated by activists who see evolution as a threat to religion and want to see creationism or “Intelligent Design” taught in public schools (a federal court concluded that Intelligent Design is a religious doctrine as opposed to a scientific theory – see Kitzmiller v. Dover).
    c. There is no more reason to “teach the controversy” about evolution than there is to teach the “controversy” surrounding whether or not the earth revolves around the sun, or whether or not the earth is flat.
    d. To avoid teaching evolution is to avoid teaching basic science. Basic science is fundamental to progress in research (some of which is literally life-saving) and to America’s ability to compete economically and technologically on a global scale.

    August 9, 2012 at 6:10 pm |
    • Dan Slaby

      You have many errors in your explanation for evolution. You may want to read a few introductory books on the subject that were not approved by the Texas Board of Education.

      August 10, 2012 at 4:02 pm |
    • Dan Slaby

      To believe in God is to worship an idol of your own ego.

      August 10, 2012 at 4:03 pm |
    • Rufus T. Firefly

      I suspect that you may have not actually read the post? If you did, please point out the errors, as this is used as a handout in an introductory course at a state university.

      August 10, 2012 at 8:58 pm |
  27. Bubba™

    As Galileo said, no matter what you say, it still moves. You don't have to believe in evolution to have fingers on your feet.

    August 9, 2012 at 4:23 pm |
  28. w l jones

    All people on planert earth look similar there by take evolution out of the picture. You might say people on other solar system look same as we are which mean people not only built civilization all over earth but through the universe

    August 9, 2012 at 3:02 pm |
    • Chris

      Written in language that is every bit as clear as the thoughts behind them. Thank you for helping to move our knowledge forward.

      August 9, 2012 at 3:21 pm |
  29. Portland tony

    Wouldn't it be ironic if a humanoid fossil were found by the Mars Curiosity probe. Can you imagine what that would do to the religions and bigots of the world?

    August 9, 2012 at 2:10 pm |
    • peridot2

      No, not really.

      August 18, 2012 at 5:56 pm |
  30. Not so smart

    I've got one question for "all of you brainaics" can any of you cure the Ebola out break, so we can all live a little longer?

    August 9, 2012 at 11:24 am |
    • pattic

      No, paleoanthropologists are not medical doctors. And medical doctors can't do anything about your lack of intelligence. That said, it does not make their contributions to science and medicine any less valid.

      August 9, 2012 at 11:31 am |
      • jamest297

        The paleontologists did not build that -

        August 9, 2012 at 11:52 am |
    • mandarax

      Actually, those brainiac scientists have caused your life expectancy to increase from about 30 to about 80 in a matter of decades. Biological anthropologists are part of that.

      August 9, 2012 at 2:21 pm |
    • peridot2

      We're still searching for the primary Ebola vector.

      August 10, 2012 at 7:44 pm |
    • carpenterman123

      Not so smart is a really good name for you.

      August 17, 2012 at 8:11 pm |
  31. Jeff

    I'm a firm believer in evolution, but sometimes I think paleontologists make leaps in logic based on only one skull. If you find more of these, that's one thing, but couldn't this one skull just have been from a deformed person? If they have found a handful of these skulls, then you can call that a population, but is logical to assume because of one fossil there must have been a large population of similar hominids?

    August 9, 2012 at 11:05 am |
    • Nonimus

      Not that I agree or disagree with your point, but often the reporting itself only exacerbates any ambiguity / confusion in statements by scientists.

      August 9, 2012 at 11:17 am |
    • D.I.

      Actualy, even if it was a population, it might still be a deformaty. Like there is a tribe in Africa that has three toes, this is caused by embreeding. Or the fact that the overall amish lifespan is becoming shorter, for the same reason.

      September 6, 2012 at 2:03 pm |
      • P. C. Allende

        Which is that tribe? Do you read that in National Geography? how many of those tripoids have you seen walking in your yard in the night? ooooouuuuuuuuuuuuuu

        September 11, 2012 at 7:38 pm |
  32. joep111

    "suggests"
    "believe"
    "thought to have been"
    "believed to be"

    This is the language that those who follow after the lie of evolution use quite often and yet evolution is treated as absolute truth.

    It boggles my mind how people are being so grossly deceived and suppress the truth of God.

    August 9, 2012 at 10:53 am |
    • jamest297

      The principal difference being that one model is certain it already knows the truth and that no new information is allowed to change that and the other model is certain that it does not know the truth and is insisting on more information in order to put another brick in the wall.

      August 9, 2012 at 10:59 am |
    • mandarax

      No, that is the language of honest people who understand that knowledge is cu.mulative and that better evidence will change the way honest people think. The dishonest language of absolute certainty is used by the religious.

      August 9, 2012 at 11:00 am |
    • peridot2

      It's other Christians who tell me I cannot be Christian and believe in evolution at the same time...why is that? If their faith is so weak it's threatened by the laws of physics, that's one think, but my faith is strong. I'm a scientist with a college degree. I've never had a problem with my faith that had any connection to my education.

      It begs the question: Why is their faith so weak that it can be threatened by the beliefs of *other people*? Wouldn't you think they'd be serene and content, knowing they had the right way and the happiness of their faith, as I do mine?

      I don't get it.

      August 9, 2012 at 8:04 pm |
      • peridot2

        Anyone notice that TG's telling me I'm not a Christian according to his understanding?

        He also isn't answering my question about fossils.

        August 13, 2012 at 1:57 pm |
    • Bubba™

      How amazing that you assume god wants you to lie and try to make the old story sound better. If god was real, he wouldn't need grannies to defend him.

      August 10, 2012 at 8:41 am |
      • TG

        The evidence of a Supreme Designer is abundantly everywhere. For example, our fingers. Why is that we have an opposing thumb ? Why is it that of the 206 bones in our body, some 1/4 of them are within our hands and arms, making them very flexible and useful rather than stiff and awkward ? Why is there at the end of our fingertips, about 2000 touch receptors with such sensitivity, that allows us to feel something as little as 75 nanometers high, a nanometer being 1/1000th of a micron, and in which a human hair has the diameter of 50 to 100 microns ?

        In addition, why does our sense of touch play a role in our health and well being, whereby "the caress of another person releases hormones that can ease pain and clear the mind" ?(U. S. News and World Report, Jan 5, 1997) In fact, the body is "loaded" with sensors that cause us to enjoy life. This is evidence of a loving God, Jehovah.(1 John 4:8)

        August 11, 2012 at 12:40 pm |
      • fimeilleur

        @ TG,

        news flash for you, your fine example of extremely flexible fingers and all because we have so many bones in our hands that help us accomplish this... BWAAAHHHA AHA HAHAHAHAHAHhahahahahah. Whale flippers have the same number of bones in the fin as humans have in the hand... UTTER FAILURE.

        August 13, 2012 at 1:17 am |
      • peridot2

        TG, your example is one of insane troll logic.

        Fail.

        August 13, 2012 at 10:09 am |
    • carpenterman123

      When you're with your god you can laugh at us nonbelievers burning in hell . LOL

      August 17, 2012 at 8:15 pm |
      • D.I.

        That isn't our goal as believers. We aren't suppose to mock them, ever.

        September 6, 2012 at 2:06 pm |
  33. shadwell

    I always find it interesting that often, the same people who scoff and laugh at the ancient alien theory have no problem believing that god created everything. I find it far more plausible that aliens have had more to do with our civilization than god. Hell, replace god with superior alien race and it sounds far more believable that a magic man in the sky. I find its is good to have an open mind, and not simply follow along like a sheep believing everything. We are NOT being told everything as some discoveries tell a different story than what we have been led to believe. Deny ignorance

    August 9, 2012 at 10:49 am |
    • Nonimus

      You have a point.
      Both ancient aliens and god(s) have the exact same amount of evidence supporting them, which is none.

      August 9, 2012 at 10:52 am |
    • joep111

      @shadwell: That begs the question: Where did the "ancient aliens" come from?

      August 9, 2012 at 10:57 am |
      • .

        I heard Toledo

        August 9, 2012 at 10:59 am |
      • peridot2

        Nope. Akron.

        August 9, 2012 at 8:12 pm |
      • carpenterman123

        Did you check uranus?

        August 17, 2012 at 8:18 pm |
  34. Robert C

    Anyone ever got the opportunity to watch "A Devil in Dover"? I recommended you folks to watch it. Also recommend a book called "Your Inner Fish".

    August 9, 2012 at 10:23 am |
    • Nonimus

      Sounds good, thanks.

      August 9, 2012 at 10:31 am |
      • Robert C

        My mistake, Nonimus. "A Devil in Dover" is also a book. But there is a NOVA episode that tells the story.

        August 9, 2012 at 11:35 am |
    • mandarax

      There is also an excellent episode of NOVA about Dover called "Judgment Day: Intelligent Design on Trial" I think you can watch it for free online.

      August 9, 2012 at 10:58 am |
      • Robert C

        My mistake! "A Devil in Dover" is the book written by Lauri Lebo who followed the story of the 2005 case regarding the school board's (in Dover, PA) decision to implement intelligent design in 9th grade biology classes; the NOVA episode you are referring to, Mandarax. I will watch the episode today. Thanks so much!

        August 9, 2012 at 11:33 am |
  35. Incredulous

    Ancient computers and airplanes? The level of stupid in these comments is just remarkable.

    August 9, 2012 at 10:15 am |
    • Aubrie

      And tell me.... You were there a million years ago, and know for fact there wasn't???? LOL

      August 9, 2012 at 10:29 am |
      • snowboarder

        a speculation of ancient technological civilizations would be bolstered by maybe a single bit of evidence.

        August 9, 2012 at 10:34 am |
      • Bubba™

        A "million" years, really? I suppose this advanced civilization didn't dig mines or quarries, never built roads and railways, and never discovered fossil fuels? All that stuff was in pristine condition, so it's improbable any high civilization predates us. Robert W. Howard placed his Conan tales in a mythical Hyperborean Age: "Know, O prince, that between the years when the oceans drank Atlantis and the gleaming cities, and the years of the rise of the Sons of Aryas, there was an Age undreamed of, when shining kingdoms lay spread across the world like blue mantles beneath the stars . . ." It's a nice story.

        August 10, 2012 at 9:18 am |
      • peridot2

        Didn't you know? We've already found Atlantis, it's on the coast of Southern Spain. It was hit by a tsunami and washed away. It perfectly fits the description of Plato. We live in a thrilling time of discovery.

        It's being researched now. It will take decades but no doubt we'll learn a great deal from the site.

        August 10, 2012 at 7:53 pm |
      • carpenterman123

        He wasn't there but I was.

        August 17, 2012 at 8:21 pm |
      • P. C. Allende

        I was; but I was so little, more littel than a neutron that I remember just when everything bLLOW UPPP. WHAT A HEADEACHE

        September 11, 2012 at 7:47 pm |
  36. TG

    Paleontologist continue to look at "evidence" with a closed mind, having accepted the belief that man evolved rather than were created. This is like a judge and jury that has already found a man guilty (or innocent) even though the evidence says otherwise. Their dating such as 1.83 million years has no foundation, basing it on a theoretical assumption.

    Because evolution is supposed to be establish as "fact", though without any solid foundation, many have tried to force the "evidence" to fit their belief. Some have even steeped to deception in order to promote evolution, such as the Piltdown man that was supposedly discovered in 1912, but some 40 years later was found to be a fraud in 1953.

    Scientific tests proved that far from being a missing link in some supposed evolutionary chain of human ascent, the skull of Piltdown man was that of a modern man and the lower jaw belonging to an orangutan that was perpetrated by Martin A.C.Hinton, a former curator of zoology at London's Natural History Museum who died in 1961 and who fooled English paleontologist Sir Arthur Smith Woodward (1864-1944), who till his death believed it was genuine.

    On the other hand, the Bible gives the real history of man, that man has been on the earth only a little over 6000 years, with the first man being named Adam (Gen 2:7) and in which the earth was prepared for human habitation over the course of six "creative" days prior to his creation, with each day being several thousand years long.(Gen 1)

    The Creator, Jehovah God, has purposed for the earth to be man's home forever, and in the near future, to be transformed into a paradise (Ps 37:11, 29; Luke 23:43), whereby sickness, sorrow and death will be completely eradicated.(Rev 21:3-5)

    August 9, 2012 at 10:11 am |
    • snowboarder

      the bible is just another book written by man. nothing more.

      August 9, 2012 at 10:32 am |
      • P. C. Allende

        NO BY MEN, PLURAL,

        September 11, 2012 at 7:49 pm |
    • Nonimus

      " Their dating such as 1.83 million years has no foundation, basing it on a theoretical assumption."

      Incorrect. Assuming they are using some variation of radiometric dating, it has been shown to be very reliable when done correctly. Radiometric dating methods have been refined to a high degree of confidence and confirmed many, many, times.

      August 9, 2012 at 10:37 am |
    • Nonimus

      "Because evolution is supposed to be establish as "fact", though without any solid foundation..."

      There is plenty of evidence for evolution. A few highlights:
      Fossils such as ambulocetus, tiktaalik, archeoptyrx, etc.
      Biochemistry such as Cytochrome-C
      Biogeography such as marsupials
      Genetics such as Human Chromosome 2, Endogenous Retroviruses (ERVs), etc.
      Experiments such as Lenski's Long term e.coli experiment

      August 9, 2012 at 10:41 am |
    • Primewonk

      I'm sorry, but your post is pure unadulterated bullshit. In fact, it is the creationists who refuse to even examine any evidence if it disagrees with a literal Genesis.

      Your post is an excellent example of someone who purposefully chooses to be ignorant about science. Instead you choose to get your "sciency" sounding information fromthe "Pastor Dave's" of the world. The problem with this approach is that "Pastor Dave" is just as big of a scientifically illiterate idiot as his minions.

      August 9, 2012 at 10:43 am |
      • eruthmorris

        I commend you for calling this ignoramous out. The same basis that he is trying to debunk is the same basis that he is using ( evidence based on something once previously written, but in the case of science there are processes and steps to make a hypothesis a proven fact, with variations of course). I believe that science and faith are one. We simplify God's magnificence on both the scientific and the creationist sides. Why can't God be a super intelligent being that created man millions of years ago. As religious enlightened people all know, God does not work on the same time as man. We know that man was not created to speak the language that we speak now, language has in fact evolved from clicking sounds and expressions to actual words and writing. So if just the basics of language evolved, then why can't humans and why can't God be intelligent enough to give us intelligence that develops into something superior than that of our ancestors over time?

        August 9, 2012 at 11:32 am |
      • fimeilleur

        @ eruthmorris,

        Sorry, but it sounds to me like you're calling on wishfull thinking... fortunately for you, there can be such a god... as soon as someone produces, reproduces, and creates a predictable model for one. I'm not going to hold my breath on it though.

        August 10, 2012 at 10:36 pm |
    • pattic

      Show me one scrap of evidence that the Bible was written or inspired by God. And don't tell me God said so. That is not evidence. It is a circular argument.

      August 9, 2012 at 11:38 am |
    • mandarax

      Really, TG? Piltdown Man? That's your idea of cutting edge information?

      Piltdown was indeed a hoax and it was exposed by scientists – paleoanthropologists to be exact – half a century ago. It was actually the overwhelming fossil evidence that initially made it look susplcious. It has nothing to do with any model of human evolution. When people talk about Piltdown as if it were relevant to modern science, you know they are getting their information solely from other whacko fundies.

      August 9, 2012 at 2:15 pm |
    • peridot2

      TG, your science denial is sad. I want to ask you why there are fossils that are millions of years old, but if you can't admit that the planet is more than 6K years of age the question is moot according to you.

      I hope if you have children that they're getting a better education than than you received.

      August 9, 2012 at 8:46 pm |
      • TG

        It is not true science that is being denied, but the theoretical assumption that life arose by evolution or by chance. For example, what have the odds been determined of even one protein being formed at random ? Some 20 years ago, it was estimated at 10 113. Why ? Because to form a protein requires that 20 specific amino acids ( of the over 100 known that are both "right-handed" and "left-handed") that are all "left-handed" be used and in a specific order.

        This could be likened to having a big, thoroughly mixed pile containing equal numbers of red beans and white beans. There are also over 100 different varieties of beans. Now, if you plunged a scoop into this pile, what do you think you would get? To get the beans that represent the basic components of a protein, you would have to scoop up only red ones—no white ones at all ! Also, your scoop must contain only 20 varieties of the red beans, and each one must be in a specific, preassigned place in the scoop. In the world of protein, a single mistake in any one of these requirements would cause the protein that is produced to fail to function properly. Would any amount of stirring and scooping in our hypothetical bean pile have given the right combination? No. Then how would it have been possible in the hypothetical organic soup?

        And this is just for a protein, not counting the over 2000 different enzymes (formed from proteins) needed inside the human cell. How does that change the odds ? To 10 40,000. More difficult to obtain than these are nucleotides, the structural units of DNA, which bears the genetic code. The odds are exponentially changing to such a point as for any randomness of life to have come about by chance as moot.

        August 10, 2012 at 10:59 am |
      • TG

        And had you been more observant, you would have seen that it is not the earth that is some 6000 years old, but man, for the earth's foundation was laid when the foundation for the universe was established billions of years ago, if not farther back.(Gen 1:1)

        Man was only formed "from the dust of the ground" around 4026 B.C.E. (Gen 2:7) The Bible provides chronological dating back to Adam, the first man created, based on pivotal dates, such as September 15, 14 C.E.(Gregorian calendar), when Tiberius Caesar was named emperor by the Roman Senate, or the downfall of ancient Babylon on October 5, 6, 539 B.C.E.(Gregorian calendar, October 11, Julian calendar), supported by such sources as Diodorus, Afranicus, Eusebius, Ptolemy, and Babylonian tablets giving the year, and with the Nabonidus Chronicle giving the month and the day of ancient Babylon's fall in 539 B.C.E.

        August 10, 2012 at 11:19 am |
      • peridot2

        What's the density of the beans? Are they equal sizes? Without this information there's no way to determine the answer. Red beans and white beans usually have different weights and size. However, if they were identical, one would expect to have equal distribution of the beans in the scoop. However, different chemicals have different weights and different atomic numbers. They're not beans. You've used a false analogy.

        Let me ask you the question I refrained from above, because I really want to know your opinion, TG:

        First, I'm a Christian. I've been saved. I'm also a scientist with a college degree. I understand DNA and evolution, well, as much as anyone with a degree in Marine Biology and a minor in a computer science can do. In other words, neither DNA nor evolution are my primary fields but I have taken classes which have had as their components studies of these topics. I also have a slight understanding of carbon dating (I can explain it to my son) as well as Potassium-Argon (K-Ar) dating well enough to explain the bare bones to a classroom. I understand the + and – variations within the radiometric dating systems.

        So here's my question to you: if the planet is so very young, why are the fossils here? The Lord gave me my intellect and my questioning nature, not to mention my love of science and interest in the world of biology and this beautiful world. Please explain to me why there are all these ancient fossils that fit together like pieces of a puzzle if they mean nothing at all?

        Don't bother to point out the variation in radiometric dating. When a person dies unobserved, we can't pinpoint the exact time of death for them, either. It's always a window of time when they passed away. It's the same thing with radiometric dating, there's always a window of plus or minus a period of time. The longer the time the bigger the window. It's the same thing when a person dies, the longer a time they're dead the longer the window.

        So, why are the fossils here? (You're not allowed to say they're a trap to send me to hell, either. That one makes as little sense as the Salem Witch Trials. Try again.)

        August 10, 2012 at 8:16 pm |
      • TG

        Your trying to show how much of an education you have has little meaning when it comes to grasping how life originated. Your saying that you are a "Christian" then should be impacted by what the apostle Paul wrote of the Corinthians, who believed that philosophy and knowledge was all important.

        He said: "For you behold his calling of you, brothers, that not many wise in a fleshly way were called, not many powerful, not many of noble birth; but God chose the foolish things of the world, that he might put the wise men to shame; and God chose the weak things of the world, that he might put the strong things to shame; and God chose the ignoble things of the world and the things looked down upon, the things that are not, that he might bring to nothing the things that are, in order that no flesh might boast in the sight of God."(1 Cor 1:26-29)

        Thus, those who are "ignoble", looked down upon, our Creator, Jehovah God has used to honor him, not necessarily those with a Masters Degree. Jesus said it very clearly in prayer to God: "I publicly praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and intellectual ones and have revealed them to babes. Yes, O Father, because to do thus came to be the way approved by you."(Matt 11:25, 26)

        Wise and intellectual ones often "miss the point", allowing their college education to dictate rather than what the Bible really teaches. These put human philosophy such as evolution as having more merit than the Bible, though claiming to be "Christian". Jesus however, told the Pharisees: "Did you not read that he who created them from [the] beginning made them male and female."(Matt 19:4) Hence, Jesus established that the first man and woman were "created", not evolved.

        August 11, 2012 at 1:03 pm |
      • peridot2

        So, TG, I ask you again: if there is no evolution, why are there fossils? Your repeatedly ignoring the question will out you as a religious troll.

        Why are there fossils? Let's hear your theory.

        August 13, 2012 at 10:46 am |
      • TG

        That question almost made me laugh. It is the same as asking why can there be found a steering wheel to a Model T. Simply because someone made it along with the rest of the car about 100 years ago, but this is all that remains. Likewise of the human body, due to the bones being the hardest substance in the body (calcium and phosphate), at death this has a tendency to remain for perhaps a long time, depending upon where it is located.

        Otherwise, the approximately 14 to 20 billion persons that are estimated to have died over the course of human history (some 6000 years), their bones would still be here, but only "bits and pieces" are actually found due to being dissolved over time, for our Creator, Jehovah God, told Adam that he would "return to the dust", decomposing and becoming non-existent.(Gen 3:19)

        August 13, 2012 at 10:35 pm |
      • peridot2

        Carbon dating proves that these fossils are older than 12000 years. Argon gas dating proves there are older fossils dating back to 4+ million years. Your denial of scientific facts does not make them untrue. You've now outed yourself as a religious troll, TG. You've lost this argument, and by default, the next three.

        Do you ever ask yourself, what would Jesus do? Would He tolerate untruths or lies?

        August 14, 2012 at 11:41 am |
      • Gadflie

        TG, apparently you have never even taken a beginning statistics class. If you had, you would have been taught that it is always impossible to determine the statistical probability of something that already happened. It's simple, if it happened, the odds are 1/1, if not, then 0/1. But, according to creationist math (which you fell for) the odds of a specific sperm cell meeting a specific egg to create you are astronomical. Multiply that by the same number twice more for your parents, four more times for your grands. In very, very few generations, the odds are greater than the ones you quoted. So, if it is possible for you to be here, your argument is hereby easily refuted.

        August 14, 2012 at 12:05 am |
      • TG

        The odds (10 113) are astronomical no matter how a person looks at it and is estimated to be larger than the totalnumber of all the atoms in the universe. In fact, any event that has one chance in just 10 50 is dismissed by mathematicians as never happening. Many never consider the odds, but continue to assume that evolution, though mindless, can "create" life.

        And of our parents having conceived us is indeed great odds, but the 23 chromosomes from each parent is already in both the egg and sperm, with the sperm having a flagella that propels it toward the egg that when we are conceived have the needed 46 to uniquely identify us.

        How did the sperm and egg "know" to have just the right amount of chromosomes (23 rather than 5 or maybe 24) so as create each person over the millennia ? What are the odds of a sperm forming by itself, since it also contains DNA, which in turn contain histones (for which the odds for a simple histone to form are 20 100) ? If the odds of a protein is at 10 113, then this changed the odds exponentially.

        August 16, 2012 at 12:11 pm |
      • peridot2

        Using scripture in a scientific argument is the work of a fool. You have no right to tell me that I'm not a Christian. You're a Religious Troll, TG and you're wasting my time.

        When one argues with a fool, no one can tell the difference from a distance. I'm done here.

        August 19, 2012 at 12:15 pm |
    • Bubba™

      "Because evolution is supposed to be establish as "fact"" You can't even think to put the 'ed' ending on 'established,' and you expect to be admired as a clear-thinking expert? Dude, you need to admit you are kinda uneducated and easily-taken, and learn what you are talking about. There's only one kind of science, and you are using it to post electronic messages saying science is basically a fraud. Do you imagine elves or angels are carrying your message to me? Wise up.

      August 10, 2012 at 4:59 pm |
      • TG

        Misspelling one word does not categorize me as "kinda uneducated and easily-taken, and learn what your talking about." Many accept evolution as fact because to not do so is considered as, well, "uneducated" or "stupid". Here is something to consider.

        What are the odds of even one protein being formed at random ? Some 20 years ago, it was estimated at 10 113. Why ? Because to form a protein requires that 20 specific amino acids ( of the over 100 known that are both "right-handed" and "left-handed") that are all "left-handed" be used and in a specific order.

        This could be likened to having a big, thoroughly mixed pile containing equal numbers of red beans and white beans. There are also over 100 different varieties of beans. Now, if you plunged a scoop into this pile, what do you think you would get? To get the beans that represent the basic components of a protein, you would have to scoop up only red ones—no white ones at all ! Also, your scoop must contain only 20 varieties of the red beans, and each one must be in a specific, preassigned place in the scoop. In the world of protein, a single mistake in any one of these requirements would cause the protein that is produced to fail to function properly. Would any amount of stirring and scooping in our hypothetical bean pile have given the right combination? No. Then how would it have been possible in the hypothetical organic soup?

        And this is just for a protein, not counting the over 2000 different enzymes (formed from proteins) needed inside the human cell. How does that change the odds ? To 10 40,000. More difficult to obtain than these are nucleotides, the structural units of DNA, which bears the genetic code. The odds are exponentially changing to such a point as for any randomness of life to have come about by chance as impossible. This puts evolution "out of business".

        August 10, 2012 at 10:02 pm |
      • fimeilleur

        @ TG,
        Statistics are fun when you do them wrong:

        Consider this: You are a statistical impossibiliity. Allow me to explain. You are the product of your mother and father copulating on one very specific night. A day before or after and you would not exist. Your father produced over 100,000 sperm that day, and you were the result of only 1 of them fertilizing your mother's egg. The odds of that happening are 1/365 * 1/100,000 or 1/36,500,000. Now consider that your father's probability that he was who he was was exactly the same as you being who you are, and that your mother had the same odds. Your odds are now 1/36,500,000 * 1/36,500,000 * 1/36,500,000 or 1/48,627,125,000,000,000,000,000. Then if you go back and include the probability of your grandparents being exactly who they were, your odds of being you are 8.63078009304453125e+52. You should not exist AT ALL... but here you are... WEIRD!!!!

        August 10, 2012 at 10:22 pm |
      • TG

        Yes, we can be considered "a statistical impossibility". However, when we were conceived, we were in a "protected environment" of our mother's womb, a habitat that was very conducive to life, that nourished the new life until the pregnancy termination nine months later. Our coming into existence was a product of our parents, an intentional act, not evolution.

        Can this be said of a protein out in the "middle of nowhere" that according to evolutionist happened by chance, whereby 20 specific amino acids just happened to arrange themselves in the precise order to form a protein, although a protein by itself could not continue. Any mistake in the orderly arrangement of amino acids or even the subtle interaction with water to "twist" the protein in the right shape would cause it to fail. Thus, could the theoretical mindless theory of evolution have precisely formed even a protein ?

        For example, how much of a mind did it take to create a processor chip that contains billions of tiny transistors so as to be able to run a computer ? Could evolution have done this ? If not, then how could it form a protein ? The odds are exponentially stacking against evolution to the point that a reasonable person recognizes that evolution is just a man-made theory diametrically opposed to the real Maker of man, Jehovah God.(Gen 2:7)

        August 11, 2012 at 2:11 pm |
      • fimeilleur

        @ TC,

        No we CAN'T be considered a statistical impossibility! I was demonstrating how wrong you can be when you incorrectly do statistics... To say it is impossible that you exist is catagorically WRONG... we know this to be true because THERE YOU ARE. Just like you saying it is impossible that the proteins formed the way science has described is catagorically WRONG because they have reproduced it in laboratory! Tell you what. Instead of getting your science information from the creationists, do the research: find out what the scientists are saying about it, read their experimental methodology and reproduce the experiments yourself. Submit your findings for peer review and claim your nobel prize.

        August 12, 2012 at 4:56 am |
      • TG

        Amino acids have been formed in laboratory, not proteins. In 1953, Scientist Stanley L. Miller, working in the laboratory of Harold Urey, took hydrogen, ammonia, methane, and water vapor (assuming that this had been the primitive atmosphere), sealed these in a flask with boiling water at the bottom (to represent an ocean), and zapped electric sparks (like lightning) through the vapors. Within a week, there were traces of reddish goo, which Miller analyzed and found to be rich in amino acids—the essence of proteins.

        However, no proteins have been formed in a laboratory or "in the wild". After Miller and others had synthesized amino acids, scientists set out to make proteins and DNA, both of which are necessary for life on earth. After thousands of experiments with so-called prebiotic conditions, what was the outcome? The Mystery of Life’s Origin: Reassessing Current Theories (Charles B. Thaxton, 1992) notes: “There is an impressive contrast between the considerable success in synthesizing amino acids and the consistent failure to synthesize protein and DNA.” The latter efforts are characterized by “uniform failure.”

        August 12, 2012 at 1:55 pm |
      • fimeilleur

        Furthermore, TC, the fact that we are the product of our parents IS evolution. Ever notice that you resemble your mother somewhat, and your father somewhat? Guess what... THAT'S PART OF EVOLUTION: Gradual change over time. Are you trying to say that your parents intentionally selected what traits you'd take on from either parent? I didn't think so.

        As far as comparing life to a computer: you are comparing two completely seperate things: one is driven to reproduce and pass on it's genetic code , the other is a completely inanimate object. The microprocessors would sit and rot were it not for human interaction... they would do NOTHING were it not for man to tell it what to do. You take a single cell, and it will eat, it will find energy, grow, and replicate itself, either ase.xually or se.xually. You cannot stop this from happening. But you can stop a computer from computing simply by not turning it on. Tell me you're not too dense to see the difference.

        August 12, 2012 at 5:08 am |
      • fimeilleur

        @ TG,
        "Where did the blueprint for our original parents, the DNA, come from ?" Science is honest enough to say "we don't know yet, but we're still looking". Religion on the other hand says "an invisible being that we have no evidence for other than the fact that nobody can say isn't there because it's invisible and out of our reach... kind of like a unicorn or leprechaun or pixie..." is just wishful make believe BS.
        "All blueprints had to have a mind to conceive them, but according to the theory of evolution, it arrived by chance. What blueprint for a building or machine has arose by chance?" DNA, simple answer it only had to happen once. why do you think life is not abundant in the solar system or even the galaxy? (If it even is present at all in the universe. Again, science is honest enough to say "we're still looking"
        "Many accept evolution though no sound evidence is forthcoming or because to not believe it means that a person is uneducated, lacking mentally." No, many accept evolution because of the over 70 fields of scientific study that supports it. From palaeontology, to geology, to biology, to cosmology, etc. etc. etc.

        "What cell, if taken out of its protected environment of a body, can sustain itself?" the single cell amoeba. Next.

        "First off, how did the cell come into existence if it has to have a body to live within ?" Ase.xual reproduction. Read up on it.

        "Many never consider what is required for life to come into existence, the odds." I already educated you on your statistical ineptness. Take a class if you're still confused.

        "For example, how long would it take for evolution to develop a steering wheel into a complete automobile?" Have you ever seen an automobile mate with another? You are ridiculous.

        "Researchers have learned that for a cell to survive, at least three different types of complex molecules must work together—DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid), RNA (ribonucleic acid), and proteins. Today, few scientists would assert that a complete living cell suddenly formed by chance from a mix of inanimate chemicals. The odds have already been established as 10 113 of just one protein forming at random, and any number higher than 10 50 is considered as impossible." Statistics class... please learn to do them properly.

        "Some years ago, astronomer Allan Sandage (1926-2010) said of the universe: “I find it quite improbable that such order [in the universe] came out of chaos. There has to be some organizing principle. God to me is a mystery, but is the explanation for the miracle of existence, why there is something instead of nothing.” Thus, the acceptance of evolution is blind faith, whereas the acceptance of God is sound, for organization, such as a living cell, does not come out of "nothing"."

        A very famous man also said: "My feeling as a Christian points me to my Lord and Saviour as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded only by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned me to fight against them." and "The most marvellous proof of the superiority of Man, which puts man ahead of the animals, is the fact that he understands that there must be a Creator." "A fox remains always a fox, the goose remains a goose, and the tiger will retain the character of the tiger." Adolf Hitler April 12, 1922 and Mein Kampf.

        What's my point for quoting Hitler? Only to show that throughout history, I can pull quotes from ANYONE in support or in opposition from any standpoint. It is pointless and irrelevant. It is called an argument from authority and it fools nobody.

        I think I've embarrassed you enough...

        August 12, 2012 at 9:21 pm |
      • fimeilleur

        @ TC,

        I don't know how, but I missed one of your posts... I'll get to it now:

        REALLY? You are quoting science from 1953 and 1992? THIS IS CURRENT CUTTING EDGE SCIENCE TO YOU? How about researching the work of Craig Venter (2010)... and see just how close we really are to creating life. FFS we were cloning animals in 1996... do you not think that we're beyond that yet? You are clearly scientifically illiterate. I'm done with you and I'm pretty sure every one reading this thread is as well. Go back to your beLIEf blog.

        August 12, 2012 at 9:39 pm |
      • TG

        Despite man's scientific advances, heart disease and cancer are still on a rampage. Why is this so even though we are now in the year 2012 ? Cutting edge technology got the automotive company Nissan in trouble in the 1980's, for these failed to thoroughly examine their product before putting it on the market. It later came back to haunt them.

        Michael Behe, professor of biochemistry at Lehigh University in Pennsylvania, U.S.A., and author of Darwin’s Black Box—The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution (1996), said that "science has now advanced enough to have uncovered the foundation level of life. And much to our surprise, scientists have found functional, complex machinery at the molecular level of life. For instance, within living cells there are little molecular “trucks” that carry supplies from one side of the cell to the other. There are tiny molecular “sign posts” that tell these “trucks” to turn left or right. Some cells have molecular “outboard motors” that propel the cells through liquid. In any other context, when such functional complexity is evident, people would conclude that these things were designed. We have no other explanation for this complexity, claims of Darwinian evolution notwithstanding. Since it’s been our uniform experience that this sort of arrangement bespeaks design, we are justified in thinking that these molecular systems were also intelligently designed."

        August 12, 2012 at 11:03 pm |
      • fimeilleur

        @TC,
        No that is a cop out. "I can't explain it, therefore GODDUNNIT". Sorry, ID has been DESTROYED (Kitzmiller vs. Dover) as being unscientific. Furthermore, EVEN IF, and I enphasize on the IF, there were an intelligent designer, what makes you think for one fraction of a second, that it's the god of your bible that did it? You have to conceed that it would be absolutely possible that the god of the Vedas is equally capable of being the designer. Or the gods of the Dakota Indians. So your "argument" doesn't advance ANYONE in scientific knowledge.

        August 12, 2012 at 11:23 pm |
      • peridot2

        Artificial DNA has been created in the lab, and that doesn't mean the simple protein chains that were discovered in 1933. The artificial DNA molecule was recreated in the lab in 2010. You, TG, are responsible for keeping up with scientific discovery. Free range denial is neither enlightened nor erudite.

        Don't preach another sermon at me. I attend worship services on Sundays at the church of my choice. You don't have the sole pipeline to God. That you feel you do is the very base of what's going wrong in the US today. Self-righteous religious arrogance is always a problem when it comes to politics and government.

        August 13, 2012 at 11:03 am |
  37. Jay

    I always found it weird how Africa is shaped kind of like a human skull.

    August 9, 2012 at 10:05 am |
  38. jamest297

    Has anyone on here dropped god a note about this finding and the story? He needs to know about this kind of thing going on in his realm. He won't be able to deal with it if he doesn't know about it and he won't know about it unless someone makes the effort to tell him.

    August 9, 2012 at 9:57 am |
  39. RillyKewl

    Why do religious people keep wanting to justify their beliefs after every new confirmation of evolutionary findings? I think its just weird + silly to confuse the 2.

    If you like believing and/or practicing your religion, go ahead. Who cares?
    Just don't try to mix it up with the facts on the ground. Separate your facts from your religious dogma + you'll be fine.

    August 9, 2012 at 9:27 am |
  40. cptpooppants

    Answer this religion people. If the great flood happened and only Noah and his wife and kids were left as the only humans on Earth how did all of civilization come from them? We all know what happens when brothers and sisters have babies. Without a wide gene pool there is no chance of having a thriving population. Are you suggesting we are all the r e t a r d e d children of Noah and his family? Or am I just supposed to have "faith"? I don't have a problem with you believing in God, to each his own, my problem is that religious people look down their noses at non-believers as if they are better than them. All I ever got from the Bible was that it is a set of Life rules. How to live your life as a good person. That's it!

    August 9, 2012 at 9:14 am |
    • nocdib

      1) You can produce offspring from incest and they not be retarded. You increase the likelihood of genetic abnormalities but such abnormalities are not definite. (2) If you are looking for a strictly biblical answer then look at the fact that Noah and the flood took place in Genesis and God's commandment to Moses against incest was delivered on Mt. Ebal in Exodus, the next book. You could take it to be that if God made man initially perfect then Adam, Eve, etc. had perfect genes so incest was no issue. After the onset of sin things went south over time so that by the time of Exodus incest had to be forbidden.

      Another biblical possibility could be that incest never occurred. Genesis 6:1-2 mentions the sons of God took wives that were the daughters of man. If these "sons of God" reproduced with the daughters of man then it would introduce more variety into the human population such that incest between the line started from Adam and Eve would not be necessary.

      This is just a possible answer based on what the Bible says. I'm not saying that this is absolutely what happened.

      August 9, 2012 at 2:57 pm |
      • fimeilleur

        Wow, so... Adam and Eve were created by god, they produced two sons, Cain and Abel, and one killed the other, leaving Adam and Eve and Cain... Cain was banished to the village to take a wife??? What??? Was this created on the eleventy-nineth day? Where the heck did she come from? Did Noah drop off all the marsupials in Australia on his way to Mt Ararat? What about the polar bears? Did he drop them off in the Arctic and the penguins in Antarctica? For such a large boat, how did he navigate between the different currents without going in circles? What did the carnivores eat when they got off the ark? What did the herbivores eat if all the plants were submerged for a year (plants can drown)? How were the fresh water lakes and salt water lakes separated and manage to keep their aquatic populations?

        Your book of "truths" doesn't answer a thing.

        Your book of "truths" doesn't answer a thing.

        August 10, 2012 at 10:52 pm |
  41. TheZel

    I find it truly amazing the advancements scientists in all fields are making in this day and age. It's a shame this rarely gets communicated with students in high schools to entice them into the STEM fields.

    August 9, 2012 at 9:14 am |
  42. w l jones

    All about are we alone. Look up UFO over Jacksonville ,Fla June 1971 or 72 on the inter net and read whether we are alone. Bless.

    August 9, 2012 at 8:24 am |
  43. Pete

    The one I wish I could see is H. floresiensis, the little people.

    August 9, 2012 at 8:20 am |
  44. TedBlair

    No matter what you believe or want to hear, that does not make the truth anybit less.
    "Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to teh Father but by Me." If you need proof of God existence, just accept Jesus as your savior.
    And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be. Rev. 22:12
    You may mock God and His believers as much as you want but each one of us will stand one day before God.

    August 9, 2012 at 8:18 am |
    • peridot2

      Why not let that be enough, Mr Blair?

      Self righteousness and arrogance bring no one to the Lord.

      August 9, 2012 at 9:42 am |
      • Aubrie

        Amen!

        August 9, 2012 at 10:32 am |
    • Primewonk

      Sorry Ted. Pascal's Gambit was refuted as soon as he proposed it. You assume it is a one-off situation. Your god, or no god. But we've invented tens of thousands of gods. Yours is no more, nor no less, special than any other god. And each of these made-up gods, makes the same claims as yours.

      August 9, 2012 at 9:50 am |
    • snowboarder

      your religion is just another one of many.

      August 9, 2012 at 9:57 am |
  45. RFBJR

    When are these guys gonna figure out that humans had no ancestors? They were created as humans! Why is that so far-fetched to believe?

    August 9, 2012 at 7:51 am |
    • RillyKewl

      because of the evidence that shows otherwise.
      Why do you think?

      August 9, 2012 at 9:29 am |
    • Nonimous

      When was the last time you saw a new species "created as" a new species?

      August 9, 2012 at 9:38 am |
    • peridot2

      Then what is the origin of these fossils? BTW, if you claim that God created the planet with the fossils in place to trick people into believing in science and going to hell, you automatically lose the argument. By your argument, the Lord created the laws of the physical world and physics, so that dog won't hunt.

      August 9, 2012 at 9:46 am |
  46. CommonSense

    Aaaaaaaaahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!! Oh my....uh uH UH Aaaaaaahahahahahahahahaha!

    August 9, 2012 at 7:33 am |
  47. NephilimFree

    Evolutionists never stop. They can't, since if they did, they'd have to acknowledge their creator, and that is unacceptable to them. The broohaha over fossil varieties of apes and even humans labeled apes wil end soon enough. Discoveries in genetics and the cell have killed evolution. For example, DNA is a repository for digitaly encoded information. The supercoiled chromatin structure of DNA also represents 3-dimentional information crutial to the cell. The information which the DNA molecule represents is stored and retrieved by algorithmic processes which conform to linguistics law which go beyond than Zipf's Law of Linguistics. Linguistics laws are also algorithmic. Genetic information posesses the human langage properties of phonetics, punctuation, syntax, and grammar. Information, linguistics, algorithms, and language are immaterial and products of mind only. That which is material cannot create the immaterial. These facts verify that DNA cannot have originated by any material cause, and is a product of Intelligent Design. In future decades, evolution will be relegated to the biggest hoax ever produced. The embaressment it has caused evolutionists has already begun making a difference.

    August 9, 2012 at 7:06 am |
    • TJ

      Actually every single discovery in genetics further supports evolution. Intelligent Design on the other hand has been shows to be nothing more than a christian creationist con-job back in 2005. Oh, and ID has been proven, yes PROVEN to be wrong.

      August 9, 2012 at 8:09 am |
    • Nonimus

      Just to pick one thing out all that, how exactly does "Genetic information posesses the human langage properties of phonetics,"?

      August 9, 2012 at 9:52 am |
    • snowboarder

      ironically, language evolved, too.

      August 9, 2012 at 9:54 am |
    • jamest297

      I have an IQ somewhere between 72 and 73. Even I can recognize baloney when I see it, hear it or read it. What you have written is baloney. If I live to be 13 years old, I will never understand how folks of the past +/- 1600 years can still cling to the beast of the heaven view of creation and morality.

      August 9, 2012 at 10:04 am |
    • Miles

      Chrsitians have been saying that for how long now...about 150 years? And yet at this point you cnanot find a single scientific body or University that sides with the. The Catholic Church gave up the battle 50 years ago, all that is left now are the young earth creationists. Wow, if you are depending on those guys you really do have faith, no idea about science though.

      August 9, 2012 at 10:22 am |
    • peridot2

      'Discoveries in genetics and the cell have killed evolution.'

      Incorrect. Discoveries in genetics have proven Darwin right.

      'The information which the DNA molecule represents is stored and retrieved by algorithmic processes which conform to linguistics law which go beyond than Zipf's Law of Linguistics. Linguistics laws are also algorithmic. Genetic information posesses the human langage properties of phonetics, punctuation, syntax, and grammar. Information, linguistics, algorithms, and language are immaterial and products of mind only. That which is material cannot create the immaterial. These facts verify that DNA cannot have originated by any material cause, and is a product of Intelligent Design.'

      Your misspelled babble makes no sense. Did you copy and paste it from some creation site?

      Your claim that 'these facts verify that DNA cannot have originated by any material cause' is inaccurate because artificial DNA has been created in the lab. Your argument is therefore debunked.

      August 9, 2012 at 9:40 pm |
  48. Oblabma

    "Skull found in Kenya". One of Obama's kin folk?

    August 9, 2012 at 6:25 am |
    • Primewonk

      And yours as well. Of course, if you weren't a talibangelical tea bagger, who purposefully chooses to be ignorant, you would have already known this.

      August 9, 2012 at 9:53 am |
    • Nonimus

      We are all Africans!

      August 9, 2012 at 10:55 am |
  49. sohered

    let me guess. "we found a skull in Texas that dates back 1M ears and is oof a white man"

    August 9, 2012 at 5:43 am |
  50. AEvangelista

    Religions are man-made. Therefore there's no reason to believe in them. On the other hand, there's no reason to be an atheist either since you really don't know for sure if the universe has a creator or not. Better to leave it open.

    August 9, 2012 at 4:01 am |
    • Jane

      Stop pushing your beliefs on me. ;-)

      August 9, 2012 at 7:07 am |
    • Primewonk

      So which of the 10,000 gods we've invented should we believe in – just to play it safe?

      August 9, 2012 at 9:56 am |
      • carpenterman123

        Better go with 'em all, just to be safe

        August 17, 2012 at 8:46 pm |
    • GasPredictor

      iPhones are man-made, and therefore there is no reason to base your entire life around them.

      August 9, 2012 at 9:57 am |
  51. Christie

    Yes, they discovered two, because man and beast have always existed at the same time.

    August 9, 2012 at 1:23 am |
    • Primewonk

      Non-human animals (humans are animals) have been here for a couple billion years. Humans have been here in modern form for only 200,000 years. We evolved from earlier hominids.

      August 9, 2012 at 10:01 am |
  52. Observer

    “It ain't those parts of the Bible that I can't understand that bother me, it is the parts that I do understand.”

    – Mark Twain

    August 9, 2012 at 12:54 am |
  53. StayinAlive

    They are just humans like all of us. Human evolution is a myth. There are all kinds of variations in modern humans. Some with big foreheads, some with shorter limbs, others with thick chins. God created man in his image. He didn't create us from chimps.

    August 9, 2012 at 12:43 am |
    • Gadflie

      LOL! Your grip on reality isn't very firm, is it?

      August 9, 2012 at 12:45 am |
    • Observer

      Apparently, God created apes in his image, too.

      August 9, 2012 at 12:46 am |
    • Chris

      Thanks for clearing that up. I'm sure you are much better informed than all those hundreds of thousands of ignoramuses with PhD's in biology, paleontology, genetics, geology, archaeology, etc. Maybe you could clear up those complicated bits of mapping the human genome for us while your at it.

      August 9, 2012 at 12:48 am |
    • Gadflie

      I guess God's image has "all kinds of variations".....

      August 9, 2012 at 12:48 am |
      • carpenterman123

        He's really a contortionist

        August 17, 2012 at 8:48 pm |
    • Nknow

      We didn't evolve from Chimps. We evolved along side them from a common anscestor. And we didn't evolve from apes, we are evolved apes. I would say higher apes... but then I think that's an insult to chimps and bonobos.

      August 9, 2012 at 6:01 am |
      • Andrew

        We did evolve from apes, because we are taxinomically considered apes ourselves. That's like saying "we didn't evolve from eukaryotes, we're evolved eukaryotes", but fact of the matter is, we did evolve from eukaryotes, we evolved from metazoa, we evolved from vertabrates, we evolved from mamalia, we evolved from apes.

        At each level we get more specific, but we evolved from each larger group, including apes.

        August 9, 2012 at 6:34 am |
      • Nonimus

        @Nknow, @Andrew,
        Wouldn't it be more accurate to say humans are Great Apes and evolved from a common ancestor with other Great Apes, including chimps, bonobos, etc.?

        August 9, 2012 at 10:02 am |
      • Andrew

        That would be an accurate thing to say, but not "more accurate", because as I mentioned, it's like saying 'humans didn't evolve from eukaryotes'. If we are eukaryotes, then we came from eukaryotes, just like if we are apes, we came from apes.

        Now, we also share a common ancestor with eukaryotes, and metazoa, and vertabrates, etc etc, but that means we evolved from those general taxa.

        August 9, 2012 at 5:17 pm |
      • TG

        Some evolutionists feel that we sprang from apes. However, though they accolade the "evidence" of a single bone as having merit in their theory of evolution, yet some 30 years ago, Science Digest (May 1982) said: "The remarkable fact is that all the physical evidence we have for human evolution can still be placed, with room to spare, inside a single coffin! . . . Modern apes, for instance, seem to have sprung out of nowhere. They have no yesterday, no fossil record. And the true origin of modern humans—of upright, naked, toolmaking, big-brained beings—is, if we are to be honest with ourselves, an equally mysterious matter."

        And since then, it can be considered that little has changed, except that from a few small bones, they still try to attach these to the evolutionary theory. It is like trying to draw a picture of a car, even dating it, by finding a few rusty nuts and bolts, or maybe a old steering wheel, without knowing for a certainty just how it looked. These then rely on a very vivid imagination and theory, not facts.

        August 11, 2012 at 11:43 am |
      • peridot2

        Apes and chimpanzees and humans are PRIMATES. Humans are not apes and apes aren't humans, although humans and chimps and apes all had a common ancestor millions of years ago.

        It's telling that 99% of our DNA is identical to that of chimps. Building blocks don't lie.

        August 11, 2012 at 5:16 pm |
  54. Babu G. Ranganathan

    APES ARE QUITE COMFORTABLE IN HOW THEY WALK, just as humans are quite comfortable in how they walk. Even a slight change in the position of a muscle or bone, for either, would be excruciatingly painful and would not be an advantage for survival. There's no hard evidence that humans evolved from ape-like creatures anymore than there's hard evidence that apes evolved from four-legged-pawed dog-like creatures. All the fossils that have been used to support human evolution have been found to be either hoaxes, non-human, or human, but not non-human and human (i.e. Neanderthal Man was discovered later to be fully human). Textbooks and museums still continue to display examples and illustrations supporting human evolution which most evolutionists have rejected and no longer support. Many diagrams of ape-man creatures over the years were reconstructed according to evolutionary interpretations from disputable bones that have now been discredited but still being taught in school textbooks.

    Read my Internet articles: MISSING LINKS THAT NEVER WERE, NATURAL LIMITS OF EVOLUTION, WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS, EVOLUTION AND BIBLE CANNOT MIX, HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM.

    Visit my newest Internet site: THE SCIENCE SUPPORTING CREATION

    Sincerely,
    Babu G. Ranganathan*
    (B.A. theology/biology)

    I have had the privilege of being recognized in the 24th edition of Marquis "Who's Who In The East" for my writings on religion and science.

    August 9, 2012 at 12:07 am |
    • mandarax

      I assert that everything you just wrote is utter BS. If not, please provide one single example of a discredited fossil that is presented as authentic in current textbooks. I challenge you to provide any one example and a reference to the textbook, or admit that you are simply lying as creationists tend to do.

      August 9, 2012 at 12:16 am |
    • Gadflie

      Babu, I have one question for you. How many of these writings discrediting evolution were in actual peer reviewed journals?

      August 9, 2012 at 12:27 am |
    • Gadflie

      One more question Babu, please provide us with some evidence for creationism that is not either:
      1) a logical fallacy
      or
      2) a misuse of statistics

      August 9, 2012 at 12:30 am |
    • mandarax

      Seriously, Babu. One single example of a fossil that has been discredited by most "evolutionists" that continues to be taught in textbooks. Let's hear it. I get so tired of the outright lies perpetuated by creationists. I am calling you out.

      August 9, 2012 at 12:40 am |
    • Chris

      Good luck, Mandarax. These bozos don't even have a clue that they are supposed to back up their claims with evidence. Because they have no idea where scientific information comes from, they just assume that everybody just makes things up.

      August 9, 2012 at 12:51 am |
    • Gadflie

      A quick check on Babu reveals that this person so proud of his degree (from Bob Jones University) is a security officer. I even read one of his articles, I HIGHLY recommend them just for the amusement factor.

      August 9, 2012 at 1:25 am |
    • mandarax

      Page ONE of Bob Jones University’s Biology for Christian Schools reads:

      (1) “‘Whatever the Bible says is so; whatever man says may or may not be so,’ is the only [position] a Christian can take.”
      (2) “If [scientific] conclusions contradict the Word of God, the conclusions are wrong, no matter how many scientific facts may appear to back them.”
      (3) “Christians must disregard [scientific hypotheses or theories] that contradict the Bible.”

      Looks like Babu is at least being honest about where he got his degree....

      August 9, 2012 at 2:12 am |
    • Observer

      mandarax,

      Only students there take Bob Jones seriously.

      August 9, 2012 at 2:15 am |
    • mandarax

      It's a wonder that they even can!

      August 9, 2012 at 2:40 am |
    • SixDegrees

      Troll.

      August 9, 2012 at 3:26 am |
    • Nonimus

      @Babu,
      "He holds a B.A. with concentrations in theology and biology from Bob Jones University "
      (from one of your websites)
      So, really you have no credentials in science whatsoever, correct?

      August 9, 2012 at 10:29 am |
    • Bubba™

      Babu, that's sad. You are a very faithful follower, and I'm sure you thought Bob Jones University was a real college. If you have a serious desire to learn about these things, try retaking some of your classes at a secular university. I'm sure you will find that most scientific research has not been, as you seem to assume, faked. Reproducibility is key to science, and these results have been duplicated and examined by many skeptics. Good luck in your search for knowledge.

      August 9, 2012 at 2:57 pm |
    • peridot2

      Mr Ranganathan, I submit to you that no other member of the primate family is comfortable walking upright other than humans. Apes, chimpanzees, gorillas, orangutans, none of them spend much time walking upright. They don't have the pelvic structure for it.

      August 11, 2012 at 5:19 pm |
  55. mandarax

    How sad that opportunities for interesting discussions are scuttled by the willfully ignorant, arguing the equivalent of a flat earth. I wonder if these brainwashed dolts throw rocks at passing trains, believing them to demons.

    August 8, 2012 at 11:44 pm |
  56. Observer

    Two interesting conflicting stories in the last few days:

    (1) Physical bones that are neither man nor ape, giving some support to evolution

    (2) The creation of a ship approximating Noah's Ark and helping to point out how contrary that nonsensical story is to reality and science.

    August 8, 2012 at 11:39 pm |
    • SixDegrees

      Uh – I don't see how a boat made from steel, aluminum and other synthetics and sheathed with a veneer of wood to make it look like something else provides any support at all for the Biblical tale of Noah's ark. And that's before we even get to the ludicrous idea of stuffing two of every animal on earth into something that small.

      August 9, 2012 at 3:21 am |
      • peridot2

        Nor will I understand the connection. People of the Hebrew faith don't take the Old Testament literally. Perhaps Christians shouldn't do so, either.

        August 15, 2012 at 4:24 pm |
    • Jane

      Contrary to popular belief the evolution chain didn't exactly go ape to human, there were many forms in between. Chimps have evolved too, but in a different direction than humans. Anyway, the ancients spoke in metaphor. The ark could very well have represented the Toba Catastrophe when humans, and animal populations were devastated yet needed only 2 to repopulate to our current status.

      August 9, 2012 at 7:05 am |
      • TJ

        Actually that's wrong. In order to maintain a viable population, you need a group of about 1000 of any given species in order to repopulate. So no, these flood myths are wrong.

        August 9, 2012 at 8:14 am |
      • Nonimus

        Just to clarify the Toba Catastrophe concept estimates 10,000 to 1,000 breeding pairs of humans after that event, not 2 people.

        August 9, 2012 at 11:07 am |
  57. ngc1300

    Stephen Jay Gould wrote years ago of "Non Overlapping Magisteria". By that, he meant that science and religion have different foci. The correct question for science is "how did we come to be here? what are the mechanisms by which we are here?". The question for religion is "why are we here? what do we do now that we are here?". I don't see a problem as long as each respects the other, and acknowledges it's own limitations.

    August 8, 2012 at 11:28 pm |
  58. Gadflie

    Here's a question for the Christians here. You do realize that having an omniscient god and, at the same time, free will, is obviously impossible,right?

    August 8, 2012 at 11:05 pm |
    • Steve

      How so?

      August 8, 2012 at 11:09 pm |
      • Gadflie

        Really? You actually don't understand that? Ok, think about this. God is all knowing. He KNOWS with no possibility of error, that you will turn right at a fork in the road tomorrow. He has known this since before you were actually born.

        Can you turn left?

        If not, then you have no free will.
        If you can, then God isn't omniscient.

        Period.

        August 8, 2012 at 11:12 pm |
    • ArchieDeBunker

      Gadflie – yo've got it all backward – ONLY and omnicient God could allow free will. Any other kind of God would insist on being in control.

      August 8, 2012 at 11:13 pm |
      • Gadflie

        Naah, an omniscient God wouldn't require worship. He would know before you were born what you would believe and would therefore realize that it isn't actually your choice.

        August 8, 2012 at 11:16 pm |
    • GWEdwards

      Actually Gadflie, free will is completely incompatible with both the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics and Entropy.

      Please explain how they cannot be.

      August 9, 2012 at 6:25 am |
      • Andrew

        ... The hell? First, the "2nd law of thermodynamics" IS entropy, so that's redundant. Second... what?

        How the hell does 'entropy' violate free will? Do you have any concept what entropy is? Do you know what an 'open system', a 'closed system', and an 'isolated system' are? Because generally anything people say involving 'the 2nd law of thermodynamics says blah blah blah' is usually a misinterpretation resulting from an ignorance of the most fundamental aspects of thermal physics.

        Have you EVER taken a statistical mechanics course in your life? Because I have, and could not possibly figure out how to arrive at the conclusion '2nd law of thermodynamics says free will is impossible'. Dear god... what the f-?

        August 9, 2012 at 6:40 am |
      • Bubba™

        "free will is completely incompatible with both the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics and Entropy" To oversimplify, hot things cool off and cold things warm up; in the future, everything will be lukewarm. Does my free will prevent my Coke© from condensing and dripping and leaving a little puddle on a hot day? Hmmm, seems it doesn't. You had a point somewhere, right?

        August 9, 2012 at 2:42 pm |
      • GWEdwards

        I can't believe I'm replying to someone who doesn't know the difference between the two, but to help increase the overall intelligence of the species.....

        With only scientific laws governing our actions, we would not have the choice to build with legos or tear them apart. Each time a subject were presented the choice, it would be a predictable and repeatable outcome. If we are solely creatures of scientific laws, then every action we have would be determined not by our consciousness, but by the chemical and physical properties that govern all objects.

        Just as water does not have the "choice" to freeze or not when certain conditions exist, we would not have a choice in our actions when certain conditions exist - we would be forced (required in fact) to abide by all of the various "laws" of nature. Nothing....not an idea, not a movement, not an outcome would be spontaneous. EVERYTHING would be driven by predetermined reactions based on chemical and physical laws. No free will, as any and everything we do would be driven solely by the physical conditions that surround us and make us up.

        August 9, 2012 at 4:02 pm |
      • Andrew

        And quantum randomness makes that determanistic model seem kinda silly, but more importantly, that has nothing to do with the second law of thermodynamics.

        There *is* an argument you can make, based on the nature of time in SR and GR, but that's a very different type of argument to have, requiring a clearly much deeper understanding of physics than you evidently have.

        August 9, 2012 at 5:19 pm |
      • GWEdwards

        Wrong again Andrew.

        Nature cannot violate either concept, it will march towards march towards overall randomness and cannot "decide" to do otherwise. Man, in fact any and every intelligent being, can decide on a whim, for survival, or for no reason at all, to violate them at our heart's content. Go through life figuratively and literally always building with lego's. Or not. That's YOUR free will that would be impossible if you were bound by the 2nd Law and Entropy.

        August 10, 2012 at 6:21 am |
1 2

Contributors

  • Elizabeth LandauElizabeth Landau
    Writer/Producer
  • Sophia DengoSophia Dengo
    Senior Designer