And much seperates a gorilla from a gibbon - but both are apes, both are monkeys, both are primates, both are mammals, both are vertebrates and both are animals. That is the taxonomic hierarchy that such species belong to and we are also subject to it.



Careful there, because they do. It's not something we would consider sophisticated or artful, but it's there.



Sure, you are talking about sapience - characteristics representative of a type of ape called a homnid, but a homnid is no less an ape than a gorilla is.



You seem to be suggesting that "to evolve" means "to become more human".

It does not - evolution just means that animals reproduce with variation, and that some variations are better suited than others at exploiting available ecological niches (natural selection).

The evolution of apes has certainly not been static for millions of years, a number of ape species have appeared during the last 250,000-300,000 years - Homo sapiens amongst them.



Technological development is not the same thing as biological evolution - we are still evolving as all animals are, but our ability to manipulate tools is a product of evolution - not a sign of continued evolution.



Personally, I doubt humans will get further than Mars. We can send our tools further - but unless there is a highly unlikely breakthrough in Faster than Light travel we're pretty much bound to the habitable zone.



Seeing as we currently exploit the niche of "smart tool maker" it would be unlikely that any other species would evolve to exploit the same niche. This is the subject of the video I posted titled "Answering AbdultheImpailler" - which discusses what it would take for another species to assume the degree of consciousness we think of as exclusively human.

The ability to climb a tree is also evolutionary useful, and there is little doubt if left to their own devices, that we would see species of Gibbons arise that make the current ones look relatively clumsy.



Watch "Answering AbdultheImpailler" - video linked to in my last post. The maker of the video, AronRa, is one of the best advocates of evolution to post on YouTube (I strongly suggest anyone interested in the subject watch all of his vids).


This will explain:

• Why humans are the only species to currently hold a unique degree of sapience.
  
• What it would take another ape to do so.
  
• Why non-apes with intelligence, such as parrots and dolphins are "morphologically damned" and will never acheive sapience in their current form.
  
• Why racoons might be able to achieve sapience.
  

It's very interesting.



And to you.

Dave do i have to agree to this guys conclusions?I dont think so,i believe evolution always favours the best and we are the best.If it was to be allowed the billions of years necessary to recreate our species it would do just the same thing.His theory is too short sighted in my opinion and he does not give nature, evolution its true resolve.Would he look at a lemur and say yes that's my ancestor?but something very similar to this creature evolved into us.

Well I think they are interesting - but I wouldn't support them as dogma (and I don't think AronRa would either). Having said that I think the vid is pretty good (once you get past the initial question which takes up too much time) it explains a lot about what it would take to achieve sapience. I think it's pertinent and a better comment on the subject than any other I have seen - and I've seen a few.



Evolution is not anthropocentric - we are a species that has arrived amongst many others and we are the best at exploiting our niche - just as other organisms are the best at exploiting theirs.

In terms of fraternity I also think humans are the best - because I am one and favouring your own is a survivalist and alturistic principle (within reason).



No it wouldn't. The genetic lineage that led to our evolution has been wiped out as a result of our success. Our nearest relatives, such as the chimpanzee, are not our ancestors and have different genetic legacies (such as extra chromosomes, and so on).

If the humans were to die out and the descendants of the Chimpanzee were to adapt to become more like us they would never become humans, they might become something very like humans - in the same way that dolphins have become something very like Icthyosaurs - it might even be difficult to tell the "Sapient Chimpanzee" from a human - but genetically they would be very different.



Again, I think it's too anthropocentric to say that humanity is some sort of logical or desired end result of nature.



No, in fact one of his other videos criticises the hype over the recently discovered Ida fossil.
YouTube - Ida Know
No serious evolutionist would state that the sort of lemurs alive today are our ancestors. However, the closest basal form (missing link) shared by all primates looks superficially like a lemur.

So in terms of rude physionomy, lemurs have altered less over time than other types of primate - the evolutionary pressures on them have apparently not been as drastic as those on other forms of primate - which is why the majority of surviving lemurs are found in isolated niches - such as those on the island of Madagascar.

A ring-tailed lemur is every bit as much a modern animal as humans - but it looks more like a distant ancestor in terms of form.

I have the opinion that we would return in much the same form,be it not with the same genetic history but with all the same attributes.Nature can not help it self by evolution it will make the most versatile and well balanced species it can.Nature by its very name will always,whatever the circumstance, will evolve human characteristics.Try improving on the human as a multi tasking efficient mobile intelligent animal.
I can remember an engineering project, students where given the task of improving the human body.The simple thing of an extra arm involved making the head three times larger just to compute the extra arms movements.Stronger it becomes less dexterous, smaller and tools become a necessity for ever event.We are the pinnacle of success and we would return.
Who can tell how nature would secure our replacement we can only speculate.

Christians in tribal Europe believed people only had one shot at forgiveness of sin, and so they would wait until death was imminent before taking confession.

I think the logic of the whole thing falls flat... Can I accept that God allows people to sin and to suffer sin, and then forgives, and restores people to their honor... If all power is his, then all responsibility...If all power is ours then we have to control our own affairs...It does not matter about eternal punishment if we punish ourselves eternally... And since this we clearly do, by allowing and even forcing people like hitler to power, the cure to problems and a path to a happy life is to recognize all the many causes of our periodic hitlers, and fix them...Hitler was always a nut...He was always detached from himself and his own emotions...He could not even conceive of his own death, let alone suffering in hell...He was beat severely as a child, and I trust he found defense in detachment...But he was also thought to be part jewish, and he was also detached from that group too...It is a problem I think is way too common, that when we deny our own emotions and desires, we deny all emotions and desires... Considering the number of religions that take this self denial as a tenant, we are facing a huge problem that a little false forgivness won't cure...

Dave, thank you for your comments. It will take me a while so please indulge me a little longer. I will effort to correspond to everything you have said.
Thank you,
William

It's to your credit that you acknowedge that it'll take time to digest. Please be aware that an awful lot of the sites and creationist experts who claim to have debunked evolutionary theory tend not to understand it - so I would be very interested in hearing what objections you have (as you surely will - it takes a lot of explaining) but I have seen certain objections come up time and again.

But I appreciate you taking the time - and I will try my hardest to answer any further questions you might have with the patience you are willing to show me.

Dave,
I have said many, many times the reason we, people, delve into the past is to codify or justify a condition in the present. Science needed something to make it's research legitimate. That is the sole reason for it's insistence of evolutionary "theory". It is my belief, if something were indeed fact, it would be simple to understand. If it were indeed something we needed to know evidence would be overwhelming. The Earth has a way of concealing it's past, and for very good reason; "WE ARE NOT MEANT TO GO THERE!" That's why the science of evolution or any other science for that matter, is so "complicated" as it efforts to make that link between man and animal "fit". The very first and initial mistake science made was to put the man in the category of "animal" in saying man was an "animal". Of course at that time we really didn't know any better, and to deny that fact is something the "ego" of science will not allow. I can't allow it, because we would begin to question science, again something they cannot allow. "Who is anyone to question 'their' brilliance? Humph!!!!", no offense meant. Ha.:surrender:

That is precisely why so much of scientific thought is so "atheistic"; EGO, EGO, EGO and science has one of the biggest of all. Again, no offense meant.

You referred to me as a bigot, though abstinent, would have been a better word, yet your use of the word bigot, just illustrates that very ego. Who is the bigot here? Now we are even, and if it's all the same to you, let's not use it again, okay,or any other language like that. It is indeed offensive. There are many words we can use that will make communication much more efficient.:surrender: I understand your frustration, I really do.

I am in no way discounting "the need" for science. It is definitely needed, for it keeps us alive. I have a machine in my chest that helps my heart beat.Yea!! But in doing so we really screw with "mother nature and human nature" over the "long haul" as it were as we try an figure out our being and the universe we reside in. Talk about complicated? There is IMO a big difference in what we define as "good" and what the "truth"is. The mind was not meant to be "taxed". It really screws up the bodily function. For instance Stephen Hawking. A man that is virtually nothing but mind as his body has virtually ceased to function. And it is that very science that is keeping him alive and has taken us into "quantum" thought, where we have come to a screeching halt as we try to figure out the paradox of "Schrodingers cat" a consequence that resulted from the "Copenhagen Interpretation" of 1927, as we effort to figure out life and death from a scientific point of view; something, in my opinion, will never be empirically understood. Hence the word paradox. Evolution is another of those interpretations, IMO. I have posted the following links in case the above two don't work.


Copenhagen interpretation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I am still perusing your post to determine if there is anywhere I can break through your ego. Please don't be offended by that. All brilliant people have one. I know, I had one once. Ha.

William

Bill what was that all about? I read with anticipation of some great revelation and you said absolutely nothing.That is apart from one thing we must not look for the truth, its against some unwritten rules.:perplexed:

Thanks, xris. It was meant to depict science is not a perfect science. You cannot define a truth by digging into a flawed past and clinging to that erroneous information we gather there. My God, we have entirely to much of that to decipher from already. I don't have all the answers or revelations you are looking for. That post was merely to establish some parameters in which I base my thinking so we can communicate a little better. It was primarily addressed to Dave and I apologize that I did not make that clear. The more complicate our speech the more difficult it is to communicate; I was relating why. We laud intelligence and berate ignorance and it is lack of communication between the two that create that situation. If evolutionary science cannot easily define it's existence, and effectively communicate it, there will always be those divides that separate us. It is so important when one attempts to communicate they open up and give those reasons why they think the way they do. If I can't understand it, because my common sense tells me otherwise, there will be a disconnect. What science does from it lofty abode, affects every human being on this planet. With that responsibility it must be spot on perfect in the conclusions it arrives at. Every post I have ever written is based on common sense, this one was no different, neither is this one.

Thanks,
William

We can and do learn an awful lot from delving into the past. The maxim of learning the lessons of history need not apply to human history alone.

For example, evolutionary theory has been practically applied to:

• The engineering of wings used on planes.
  
• Anticipating and countering resistance in disease - genetic, viral and bacterial.
  
• Crop rotational schemes - how to avoid pests without recourse to poison.
  
• Wildlife conservation.
  

These sorts of things do promise us returns, and that's without stepping into ethical hot potatoes such as GM crops, cloning, etc...



For the life of me - I don't understand the theory of gravity or of electromagnetism, and I don't consider them or their upshots to be simple. I have a certain degree of trust in them - because I think the scientific method is the best way of codifying facts about something, and I think if these theories weren't properly subject to the scientific method someone would have blown the whistle by now.



We really are drowning in evidence for evolution.

To go back a few posts - I talked about how the discovery of Ida had been hyped up - but the reason it had been hyped up is for years and years people had been saying "there must be an animal which exists as the basal form for all primates" - but no evidence for such an animal had been found apart from the fossils of it's decendants.

But because scientists knew whereabouts in the geological strata primates began appearing, and whereabout geographically they seemed to spread from - they felt confident that searching relevant rocks might produce a fossil - and it paid off.

A few years earlier scientists had been scouring Devonian rocks in Greenland because that's were they knew early Tetrapods (land dwelling animals with 4 limbs, spines, shoulders and pelvises) lived. They reasoned that examination of these rocks might turn up an animal that shared some characteristics of tetrapods, and some of fish, and they went on to discover Tiktaalik.



So knowledge of evolution can lead to staggering accurate predictions about what sort of animals can be found within which rocks, and transitional forms such as Ida or Tiktaalik are found because those with a good grasp of paeleontology know where to look for them.



That's a rather anthropocentric view.

If the links between man and animals bothers you then let's not go there for the time being. Man need not be compared with an animal, just compare any two animals with another.

Take another look at Tiktaalik, there's no need to compare it with man but instead to fish and salamanders.


If we take the following facts as given:

• Animals reproduce themselves.
  
• The reproductions are not perfect - there is always variation.
  
• Some variations help the animal survive more than others.
  

Now if this is accepted it's easy to see how descendants of Tiktaalik will be able to benefit from it's proto-limbs. They will be able to pull themselves through the vegetation-dense water of the Devonian swamps, and if this continues to assist - they will even develop legs strong enough to walk on, allowing them to escape predators by climbing onto the land.

Which is exactly what evolutionist theorise happened.



Taxonomy - a science invented before evolution by natiural selection - cannot account for a definition of animal which excludes man - just as it cannot account for a definition of ape, primate or tetrapod which excludes man.



Well, anyone, but I do feel that it is better to at least acknoweldge what you are questioning before you do so. Wouldn't it be better to know what evolutionists believe before claiming they are misled?



I said it was bigoted to lump all scientists who credit evolution into a category of egotists - it simply isn't the case. Stereotyping any varied group of people under one negative association is dictionary definition bigotry. I don't think it's any worse than saying "sanctimonious priests", "greedy bankers" or "corrupt politicians" - all bigotries I am guilty of - but it's no more accurate either.

I don't think a petty act of bigotry makes you a bigot, any more than the fact I told a lie last month makes me a liar. I don't know you nearly well enough to know if such mischaracterisations are representative of you, and I credit you a certain degree of curiousity and good manners - but to say "scientists are all egoists" is bigotry.

A lot of scientists dedicate their lives to the study of esoteric phenomena - with little hope of recognition - for the benefit of mankind. I do think it rather unfair and ungrateful to suggest, as many do, that they do so for the good of their egos or to be numbered among some elite.

I actually think that considering evolution could be both egotistical and humbling.

HUMBLE: There is nothing more special about humanity than any other species - we are just carriers for our genes.

EGOTISTICAL: A process taking billions of years has produced a highly rarified animal, self aware to the degree of no other as far as we can tell, and despite the staggering unlikelihood that atoms should combine into one of these creatures, and the unbelievable unlikelihood that I should be lucky enough to be one - I have that priviledge.

However, science alone will never be able to make that distinction - it's a matter for personal ethics.



I find that an odd comment from someone interested in contributing to a Philosophy forum - perhaps it's the end result of thinking "a little learning can be a dangerous thing". I agree that it's true that goodness and truth are not always mutually compatible, and that processes of continual technological improvement may lead us to disaster.

At the end of the day though, I am still happy to be rid of my gangrenous appendix, and you are still happy to have your heart monitored - so in our case we haven't got any courage of conviction to just "let nature take it's course".

My belief is that whilst goodness is a matter for ethics and truth may be better discovered through science - ethical decisions are served well through clearer visions of the matter of facts.



Well, he would still have suffered from neuromuscular dystrophy had he not become a physicist.



The physicist Richard Feynman pointed out that "if you think you understand quantum theory - you don't understand quantum theory" yet he also asserted that the calculations used in quantum generated results equivalent to guessing the width of the USA to the diameter fo a single human hair.

So there does seem to be something worthy of consideration - given the power of the theory.

Evolution is much easier than quantum - it is still very hard, I accept, and I am no expert in all but the most basic of it's ramifications.



All I can really say is that I am willing to attempt to address any objections to the theory you may have. The only ego here is that of someone who seeks to have his own stance challenged in the hope that he might learn or impart some knowledge on the way.

Hi,

I read somewhere that human , Homo Sapient footprints were found side by side with dinosaurs fossilized in the same epoch

There is a theory that it could have been people from outer space

Do any of you know about this?

Peace

Dave remarks bold, mine red and not bold.

"Evolutionists do not think that the ancestor of species of apes (what was that ancestor?) currently alive is still around. (Why?) Apes alive today are thought (?) to share a common ancestor whose lineage branched off into different species as they took advantage of different ecological niches. The ancestors of Gibbons became ever more rarified (if you like) for tree-dwelling, the ancestors of Humans for being smart tool makers".

The red comments indicate the entire statement is hypothetical and not fact. It is "supposed" and not "true"

"Of course we know that tools like cars and skyscrapers occurred after humans appeared on the earth. Early tool-working homnids such as Australopithecus aferensis are thought (? ) It should read, "has been proven, and explained how." to have walked on two legs because their plains dwelling lifestyle meant that such a move saved energy. This would have freed up their hands - and so favoured those with more dexterity in their thumbs and fingers - and this move led to tool making and conceptual thinking being a clear advantage".

Again, hypothetical.

"I think of this as beginning a sort of positive feedback loop - further evolutionary changes occured as a result of those with better conceptual minds and tool making faculties - which led this particular linage to becoming human, and our apparently unique degree of sapient conciousness".

Unless the questions to the first two paragraphs can be answered, this is totally conjecture.

"You are right to suggest - as I credit you with doing - that if one type of ape evolved whilst others didn't it would be absurd. Evolutionists do not think (?) that ancestral chimps and gibbons were the same as they are today. It is just that evolution does not always produce smart and cultured animals as an end result. (Why? If evolution is consistent and that is exactly what evolutionist are conveying; Evolution is evolution and all must evolve to be smart and cultured. Consider the kangaroo; what was it before it was "this" smart, in it's dumb and uncultured state?) The logic of the theory suggests (?) that the ancestors of humans benefitted from being smart, but that the ancestors of gibbons did not benefit from being smart as much as they benefitted from having long strong arms to help them swing from trees. So they adopted those traits and the lifestyle to suit them, whilst we went the route of 'smart tool maker'".

Again mostly supposition and conjecture.

Thank you Dave for your effort in explaining evolution. In all due respect, it is not necessary for me to go on unless you can provide "empirical" proof. The reason I said that is because what science deems "empirical" is indeed not. Close doesn't count. Fact is fact and if it has not been proven beyond any doubt whatsoever, it is not fact. Assumptions, hypothetical rhetoric, and conjecture are a far cry from "empirical" proof, IMO.
Please, if you can provide more definitive proof that I can understand please bring it to my attention. If there is none that I will understand, then it will be hard for me to change my position and equally harder for me to believe as fact.

Dave, Darwin's ORIGIN OF SPECIES and the idea that one species could arise from another and the driving force behind this theory was natural selection allowing the individual "most fitted" to survive, IMO, is in large part responsible for the hell we have cause in this world as we effort to determine what "most fit" is. If it is truly a natural selection, we can tamper with it. We must leave it alone. There is an intelligent design albeit an intelligence we cannot possibly understand, though religion seems to think it does, and we must align with that intelligence and dismiss evolution entirely or we will create our own demise, IMO. What do you think is the cause of discrimination, racism and genocide? It is accepting the concept of only the strong survive mentality that sprang from this probably well intentioned scientist to explain his own existence as he assumed man to be autonomous. Obviously (see list), we are missing something somewhere. Could that be the missing link?

I noticed you have posted again. Please respond to this one before I continue. Sorry for being so slow.

Thanks,
William

Sure, because here evolutionary theory is being used to guess at the progress of natural history.

In any comment regarding history using language such as "supposed" or "is thought to" is the only way to remain intellectually honest where records fail to give details.

Q: How did the Mary Rose sink?

A: It is thought to have sank due to taking on too many soldiers, causing it to lie low in the ocean which meant water entered the lower gun-decks during a sharp turn, flooding the ship.

No one KNOWS this - but it is the best guess arrived at through careful consideration of all the evidence.

Through careful consideration of all the available evidence at this time it looks like the common ancestor of apes was a creature called Aegyptopithicus. (See "Answering AbdultheImpailer" video linked to earlier for more information).

The reason Aegyptopithecus is not around today, just like 99.9% of all species that are thought to have lived, is that it has given rise to descendants who are better than it was at exploiting it's ecological niche.

The video "Natural Selection made Easy" linked to earlier explains in brief how environmental changes - such as climate change - can render some species inapt at exploiting their environment - giving opportunity to new forms to 'muscle in'.

[quote]Early tool-working homnids such as Australopithecus aferensis are thought (? ) It should read, "has been proven, and explained how." to have walked on two legs because their plains dwelling lifestyle meant that such a move saved energy. ... [/quote]

The best guess we can make based on all the current evidence.

Australopithecus aferensis (known colloquially as "Lucy") is the earliest fossil found which bears the characteristics of the class of animals known as "humanoids". Because of the way it's pelvis is formed, and the fact that it had "locking knees" we can be pretty much certain that it walked bipedally - because based on it's anatomy walking on four legs would have been very wasteful in terms of energy - and wasting energy is a bad survival strategy for forms of life.



[quote]"I think of this as beginning a sort of positive feedback loop - further evolutionary changes occured as a result of those with better conceptual minds and tool making faculties - which led this particular linage to becoming human, and our apparently unique degree of sapient conciousness". [/quote]

Yes, this is just me shooting the breeze for the sake of attempting to clarify, hence my use of "I think".



However, it is lodged in fairly logical use of the theory. Assuming as fact (as I hope we do) that:

• Animals reproduce themselves.
  
• The reproductions are not perfect - there is always variation.
  
• Some variations help the animal survive more than others.
  

Once a new adaptation allows the exploitation of a new niche (in this case, that of "smart tool maker") it's no surprise that a positive feedback loop is going to occur. The new exploiter of that niche, whilst relatively sophisticated, is not going to have reached the potential its descendants can reach - because further adaptations could improve matters. So the proto-Tetrapod, Tiktaalik, could take advantage of it's leglike fins ("flimbs" as they are sometimes known) to push through vegetation where a fish might get stuck, Tiktaaliks born with stronger or longer flimbs will be able to do so even better, have a better chance of surviving and breeding to produce a greater proportion of long/strong flimbed Tiktaaliks, until something more like a salamander limb is the norm rather than the exception.

Now the evolution of sapience is more complex - which is why I suggest we keep clear of human evolution until we agree on principles of animal evolution - but seeing as the advantages of tool-making and the intelligence that go alongside it are clear why wouldn't a positive feedback loop result?



I'm not sure [?] I get your meaning.

All species that evolve tend to take advantage of a given ecological niche, and all species benefit from being formed using the energy most efficient to reach sexual maturity.

Creating a big and complex brain takes a lot of energy - for example human babies take up to 9 months to gestate, and even then they are relatively defenceless for years afterwards and do not reach sexual maturity until they are teenagers - if not later.

Now to a bacteria - this is wasteful, if you are a tiny animal exploiting the niche of "gut lining" you have no need to develop sapience - it's a waste - your survival strategy is linked to reaching sexual maturity as quickly as possible. For a bacteria to develop a brain would be a disaster - because it simply isn't a good use of energy - by the time a bacteria has developed a brain, it will have been eaten, or it's competitors will have used up all the resources it was waiting to exploit whilst it built its brain.

Kangeroos are obviously a lot smarter than bacteria - but even their lifestyle relies on being better equipped to develop a strong body, herbivorous gut and so on.

Now you might say "well wouldn't a smart sapient animal like us outcompete all these dumb animals" - well, we are, they are becoming extinct daily because they can't compete with us.

We are reliant on them however - so perhaps we aren't that smart after all.



It strikes me that the only real argument against my position you are making is that you object to my tentative language, not the actual ideas I'm presenting. Only a zealot claims to know what happened in his absence. As I said earlier - it's merely the care taken by a professional historian - the best guess that can be made based on the available evidence.



Well that why I posted the Potholer videos, which you haven't commented on.



In terms of human survival "most fit" can be linked into the fact that we are a social animal, and benefit from cooperating with one another.

The reason a certain application of Darwin's ideas led to suffering in WW2 is that Hitler simply picked and chose parts of Darwin to suit his agenda (if he ever did so - note Hitler specifically condemns Darwin in "Mein Kampf") - as he did with Catholicism, Nietzsche, Malthus and even Marx. He started with a racist conclusion, and then looked for anything that could be manipulated to give it creedence.

If he had been enlightened to that the fact that "most fit" in terms of social animals can mean "most cooperative" then he might not have ever cited Darwin as influential (if he ever did anyway). To Hitler "most fit" meant strength and uniformity - but humans are not relatively strong animals, and all forms of life benefit from genetic diversity, and humans from cultural diversity - as that were we get so many of our ideas from or learn the lessons of history. If Hitler was inspired by Darwin it's only because he got it wrong - as he so often did.

If one does accept that cooperation can extend to those not of your tribe, race, or even species, the Darwinian model could be used to justify worldwide human fraternity and care for the environment to ensure the survival of an ecosystem that nurtures us and other species in perpetuity as far as possible.

A utopian vision - much the same in character as many religious ones. I'm too much of a pessimist to think it could ever work, but it's a nice idea.



So you'll give your heart monitor back tomorrow, I presume?

I mean, if natural selection is not to be tampered with - we should both probably be dead.

I don't mean to be facetious - I think it is best to try and work out how to live in harmony with the planet, but I doubt we are capable. However, if we are to try and do so we need to understand the world we live on, how it works, how we can exploit it without overexploiting it.



Primarily ignorance, manipulated by those who want to scapegoat "the other" in order to garner more resources for himself.



To repeat my earlier point - survival of the fittest does not mean survival of the strong - it might mean, in terms of the human condition - exercising cooperation.

Darwin, initially trained to be a clergyman, became involved in biology in order to determine patterns God had placed on the earth. His faith was shaken, though never fully destroyed as some claim, by having to come to terms with the cruelty of nature (after observing the breeding strategy of the Ichneumen Fly, which lays it's eggs inside caterpillars, he announced he could no longer believe in a "benevolent god", and was further convinced by the early death of one of his daughters). However, he never claimed to be an atheist and never claimed humans were autonomous. The theory is not anathema to faith and many Christians accept evolution - including all those who accept catholic doctrine as the Pope has ruled evolution a fact of existence.

This vid is AronRa's personal rant against one of foremost falsehoods of the creationism movement; the idea that accepting evolution is tantamount to declaring atheism, or that one need be creationist to be Christian.
YouTube - 1st Foundational Falsehood of Creationism

Copied from http://www.geocities.com/capecanaveral/hangar/2437/paluxy.htm

One of the most commonly encountered claims of the creationists is that creationist geologist Dr. Clifford Burdick, a member of the Creation Research Society, found modern human footprints next to dinosaur footprints along the Paluxy River, near Glen Rose, Texas, thus proving that (a) humans and dinosaurs lived at the same time, and (b) evolution must therefore be wrong. For instance, Henry Morris of the Institute for Creation Research, writes: "One of the most spectacular examples of anamolous fossils is the now well-known case of the Paluxy River footprints, in the Cretaceous Glen Rose formation of central Texas. Here, in the limestone beds, are found large numbers of both dinosaur and human footprints. The tracks occur in trails, and in two or three locations the dinosaur and human trails cross each other, with two known cases where human and dinosaur tracks actually overlap each other. . . These tracks and their discovery have been conclusively documented by on-the site, at-the-time, motion pictures." (Henry Morris, "Scientific Creationism", CLP Publishers, San Diego CA, 1974, pp 122-123)

As usual, this creationist claim is a mixture of misinterpretation, misrepresentation and unwillingness or inability to correct past mistakes. There is no evidence whatsoever for human footprints co-existing with dinosaurs anywhere along the Paluxy River, as both the Creation Research Society and the Institute for Creation Research now admit.

One of the earliest debunkings of the Paluxy footprints is reportedly contained in the book "Dinosaur Tracks and Giant Men", written in 1975 by Berney Neufeld, a creationist Seventh-Day Adventist, Flood geologist and geneticist. I've not been able to obtain a copy of this book yet, so I can only repeat citations from it that I've seen in other places. The conclusion reached by Neufeld was that there was not any "good evidence for the past existence of giant men", and the Paluxy River prints did not "provide evidence for the coexistence of such men (or other large mammals) and the giant dinosaurs." (cited in Ronald Numbers, "The Creationists", Alfred Knopf, NY, 1992, p. 266)

Burdick's original tale was that he had found human footprints actually overlapping those of dinosaurs, and this was the story that Morris and Whitcomb repeated in the first edition of their book "The Genesis Flood". Later, however, Burdick admitted that no such overlapping prints existed, and Morris and Whitcomb were forced to revise this portion of their text in the third edition. (cited in Numbers, 1992, pp. 202-203) (As shown above, Morris nevertheless repeated this debunked claim in 1974, in his book "Scientific Creationism".)

Paleontologists who examined the Paluxy "man prints" have without exception declared them to be nothing more than partially-registered dinosaur tracks, natural depressions, or, in some instances, deliberate forgeries carved by local residents to sell to tourists. These were also the conclusions reached by biologist Glen Kuban in 1980, as well as another group of scientists in 1984, which included physicist Ronnie Hastings, geologist Steven Schaferman, anthropologist John Cole and physical anthropologist Laurie Godfrey. (Arthur N. Strahler, "Science and Earth History", Prometheus Books, Buffalo NY, 1987, p. 463)

Descriptions of the Paluxy prints indicate that they range in size from around 11 inches to over 20 inches, and average about 15 inches.
The length of a human foot is equal to approximately 1/6.6 of the height, so if we have the length of the footprint, we can calculate the height of the person by multiplying this by 6.6 . (People who doubt this can easily get a ruler and try it on themselves.) A human being with 15 inch feet, therefore, would be approximately eight foot three inches tall. A human being with 11-inch feet would be a bit over six feet tall, and a human with 20 inch footprints would be about eleven feet tall. If these footprints are human, they are damn awful BIG humans.

Thus, one of Morris's theories of the Paluxy prints was that in the time before the Flood, evil demons took possession of human bodies and seduced young women, who then had children--"The men whose bodies were possessed," Morris says, "were evidently thereby made so attractive to women that they could take any they chose as wives. These 'Sons of God' thus controlled not only the men whose bodies they had acquired for their own usage, but also the wives they took to themselves, and then all the children they bore." Morris says that the children of these demons then became "the giants, the mighty men of old" mentioned in the Bible, and he speculates that these "giants" may have been the makers of the Paluxy River footprints (cited in Numbers, 1992, p. 211) It was this hypothesis that was taken on by Neufeld in his book. I think such a "scientific explanation" needs no further rebuttal.

Finally, if you examine the photos of the Paluxy prints in Morris's book "The Genesis Flood", you can clearly see loose sand and dirt that has been piled around the prints, particularly near the "toe" regions, and the effect of this (if not the intent) is to make the "toe" regions of these prints look much more humanlike than they would without them.

When the Paluxy River footprint story was printed in the "Creation Research Society Quarterly", it caused a lot of debate within CRS. Burdick was already under suspicion by CRS because of his claims to have found pollen grains in pre-Cambrian strata at the Grand Canyon--a claim which was investigated by two independent researchers at CRS expense and was found to be baloney (the investigators concluded that Burdick was too incompetent to take an uncontaminated sample). When Burdick announced his discovery of human footprints alongside of those of dinosaurs prints at Paluxy, Walter Lammerts, the co-founder of CRS, was skeptical, and inserted an editor's note into the original article in CRS Quarterly:
[INDENT]"Admittedly this discovery offers as much of a problem for Flood geologists as for those of the orthodox point of view. For it is difficult to explain how two men could still be alive after such a depth of strata had been deposited. And if already drowned, why were they not buried later in the Mesa Verde formation? A more detailed and clear-cut concept of just how the Flood accomplished its work is badly neeed in order to be able to see how such finds as these fit into theoretical expectations, or creationists will be guilty of the same ad hoc explanations as evolutionary minded colleagues." (cited in Numbers 1992, p. 266)

[/INDENT]Privately, Lammerts had already begun to doubt Burdick's competence. He had received a letter from Burdick's old friend Frank Lewis Marsh, a fellow creationist, stating that Burdick had a "tendency to lean into the fantastic in geology" (cited in Numbers, 1992, p. 261) Lammerts wrote to fellow CRS co-founder Henry Morris that he was concerned about "the slowness of Burdick mentally when at the Creation seminar and hope he is not misleading us on some [of] his opinions. He for instance had evidently never heard of the series of horse-like animals found and was at a complete loss to explain them. Evidently he has not kept up with his reading very much." (cited in Numbers, 1992, p. 266)

Evidently not. Lammerts' suspicions about Burdick were confirmed when he investigated and found that Burdick had lied when he claimed to have had a Masters Degree from the University of Arizona. Lammerts investigated Burdick's claim that he had failed to get his PhD from the U of Arizona because of his creationist beliefs, and found that Burdick's story was baloney.

After this, Lammerts wrote to Morris that he hoped that Burdick was "really academically honest" and did "not have delusions of some easy road to fame", but admitted that the "doctors degree stuff" made him wonder. (cited in Numbers, 1992, p. 260)

In 1970, the CRS asked Wilbert Rusch to visit the Paluxy River and find out once and for all if the prints were real or not. Rusch concluded that the best he could say was that Burdick's claim was "not proven". (cited in Numbers, 1992, p. 265) Rusch concluded that Burdick had rushed into printing a sensational story with little to back it up--"We need these episodes for our cause," Rusch reported, "like we need a hole in the head. Premature statements, too strong statements on insufficient evidence, do us as much harm." (cited in Numbers 1992, p. 265) Lammerts, meanwhile, wrote again to Morris, "The whole footprint business raises more problems for our side than for evolutionists. On the basis of a worldwide Flood what were people doing WALKING [emphasis Lammerts'] around yet after so much sediment deposited? Burdick has never answered this question [he still hasn't today-!-LF] nor has any of the footprint enthusiasts." (cited in Numbers, 1992, p. 265)

In 1984, during a dry spell in which the Paluxy River dried up, two investigators found that the outline of the dinosaur prints at Paluxy exhibited a peculiar color change caused by a layer of slightly different-colored sediments filling them in after they were laid down, and these color changes were visible when the rock dried. When the riverbed was dry, entire new lines of three-toed dinosaur tracks were visible, even though they were not depressed to a noticeable degree. More importantly, THE SO-CALLED "MAN TRACKS" EXHIBITED THE SAME DIFFERENT-COLORED THREE-TOED OUTLINE, indicating that they were ALL the incompletely-registered tracks of dinosaurs, NOT humans. The two investigators, Kuban and Hastings, called upon the Institute for Creation Research to send investigators of their own, and after some prodding the ICR sent John Morris and several others. The evidence that the "man tracks" were in fact dinosaur prints was so convincing, even to the creationists, that John Morris himself wrote, in the January 1986 issue of the ICR's newsletter "Impact":
[INDENT]"In view of these developments, none of the four trails at the Taylor site can today be regarded as unquestionably of human origin. The Taylor trail appears, obviously, dinosaurian, as do two prints thought to be in the Turnage trail. The Giant trail has what appears to be dinosaur prints leading toward it, and some of the Ryals tracks seem to be developing claw features, also." (cited in Strahler, 1987, p. 469)
[/INDENT]Morris concluded, ". . . it would now be improper for creationists to continue to use the Paluxy data as evidence against evolution." (cited in Strahler, 1987, p. 469)

Henry Morris, in an accompanying letter to ICR members tried to backpedal from the earlier statements of creationists (like himself) who had prominently featured the Paluxy prints as solid evidence that evolution was wrong: "This question in no way affects the basic creation/evolution issue. These tracks have always been only illustrative, not definitive, and the over-all scientific case against evolution, which is overwhelmingly strong, is not affected in any way." (cited in Numbers, 1992, p. 267, and in Strahler, 1987, p. 469)

Based on this evidence, Films for Christ, which made the movie "Footprints in Stone" claiming the Paluxy prints proved that humans and dinosaurs lived together, released a statement that read: "We highly recommend that no one represent any of the Paluxy tracks as proven evidence of human existence during the Cretaceous until final, reliable conclusions can be reached regarding new and old data." (cited in Strahler, 1987, p. 469)
Neither the Creation research Society nor the Institute for Creation Research nor Films for Christ maintains any longer that human footprints appear anywhere along the Paluxy River.

William who knows maybe apes "devolved from Homo Sapient man"

Great posting ,

Peace to you William

---------- Post added at 10:53 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:49 AM ----------

Hey Irish against the American great debate guys, what can I add or subtract?

I'm British, born in Windsor and living in Belfast. Many people born in Belfast would also claim to be British too, though every other person here would claim to be Irish. It's famously complicated...

Devolution does not really occur in the fossil record - once the genetic changes have been made they tend to stick around - though atavism (the re-emergence of characteristics previously lost) is commonplace (humans born with tails or fur, the "turning on" of chicken teeth and so on...).

So for example the short-tailed bat, a species of bat in new zealand, is a weak flyer, and hunts along the ground for insects in much the same way as the ancient shrews (which evolved into bats) used to do. It is therefore likely that the ancestors of the bat were blown over to the country in the past, and therefore benefitted from not flying - as it is more effective in terms of energy to crawl and there are no cats or rats in new zealand to prey on the crawling bats.

New Zealand short-tailed bat facts: Native animal conservation

However, the bats couldn't "evolve back" into shrews, because the genetic changes aren't simply reversable. They could acquire changes over time that would make them analgous to shrews in everything but name.

Now that cats and rats have been introduced the bat is being preyed upon and numbers are declining. If new generations of short-tailed bats evolve the characteristics needed to become strong fliers again they might survive - but it's likely to become extinct.

I really don't see why the bats you mentioned could not revert back to a shrew like animals , but it would still be evolution not devolution that I tried to suggest

I see my former enemy cant see my posts anymore I am now invisible to him thank G-D

William where do stand on the concept of the isolation of species,changing from the origin species.Dave how do you explain all the blue eyes coming from one individual.Alan where did you get that from.. humans and dinosaurs in the same grave?:perplexed:

Genetics is a hugely complicated field, but I will try to sum it up.

DNA is essentially the protein around a binary code, copied with variation.

The chromosomes of animals are made of DNA.

Each chromosome affects various parts of the body, a particular stretch of chromosome affecting a particular characteristic is known as an allele.

So there is an allele for eye colour.

Pigmentation of the skin affects an ability to survive under direct or weak sunlight.

Too much skin pigmentation under weak sun can lead to inability to absorb vitamin D - leading to conditions such as rickets. Too little under strong sun can lead to skin cancer, sunstroke and easy burning.

So people in temperate parts of the world tend to benefit from paler skin, whilst people in hotter parts tend to benefit from darker skin.

Therefore those who were born in termperate climbs with alleles that did not produce melanin (the pigment which darkens skin) tended to have an evolutionary advantage.

Melanin is also the colour that darkens eyes - human blue eyes are not actually blue, it is just the the colour of the bloodvessels in the eyes is blue, and this is what shows up when all the melanin is absent (this is why human albinos have blue eyes - rather than red eyes like rabbit or mice albinos).

Because all human populations trace themselves back to northern Africa - where high skin pigmentation is the norm - blue eyes would have been very rare - only albinos would have had them.



(His eyes look grey rather than blue - but I use it as an example of how brown eyes are related to skin pigmentation).

Now research at the university of Copenhagen suggests those with blue eyes that aren't a result of albinism share a common ancestor, as explained on this blog: Google Image Result for http://mathildasanthropologyblog.files.wordpress.com/2008/07/albino_african_americans.jpg



With respect to the professor, I disagree - because lower proportions of melanin in the body helps people absorb vitamin D, and any mutation that reduces melanin levels will give people in cold countries a better chance of survival than their neighbours - hence why blue eyes are so associated with nordic people.

They could change into shrew like animals, but it would not be reversion - it would be a new species entirely.

---------- Post added at 06:33 AM ---------- Previous post was at 06:29 AM ----------


I wrote a fairly long answer - but for some reason it requires moderation before posting - can't think why though I did include some links to a blog about albino africans.

Hopefully it'll be approved shortly.