HaloScan.com - Comments

If you read some books on the subject of paleoanthropology it quickly becomes evident that a lot of what is presented to the public as fossil evidence is quite often the result of political jostling by scientists rather than by actual evaluation. Richard Leakey has complained about this in the past.

This doesn't refute the theory of evolution, of course, but does point to the fact that any current specific theory within the larger theory of evolution should be taken with a grain of salt.
John | 08.09.07 - 3:41 pm | #

Nick, for a well reasoned response to the quote you gave from the article, see Just Thomism:

http://thomism.wordpress.com/200...007/08/09/sigh/
pd | 08.09.07 - 4:22 pm | #

Nick,

That's one of the things I saw in it that I had to chuckle about. Why even bring religion into it? What brought that on? I had to chuckle.
Dave G. | 08.09.07 - 4:39 pm | #

From the article:

"The complete skull of Homo erectus was found within walking distance of an upper jaw of Homo habilis, and both dated from the same general time period. That makes it unlikely that Homo erectus evolved from Homo habilis, researchers said."

Right, just like dogs must not be from wolves since they live contemporaneously with them.

The evolution of one species from another does not eliminate the previous species, it just means that their genetic lines diverged in a fork, with one of the branches continuing back further. That they lived side by side for a time is no proof that one didn't come from the other.

I'm kinda suprised that "researchers" worth their salt would suggest such a thing.

Peace and God bless!
Ghosty | 08.09.07 - 4:44 pm | #

PD-

Thanks for the link. The blogger is very charitable. If I can be less so, I think the problem with Dr. Anton's remark (as it is quoted) is that it is purely ignorant.
Nick | 08.09.07 - 4:47 pm | #

"Right, just like dogs must not be from wolves since they live contemporaneously with them."

Did somebody artificially intervene in the evolution of man?
JonathanR. | 08.09.07 - 11:50 pm | #

"Did somebody artificially intervene in the evolution of man?"

Actually, evidence suggests that dogs began to seperate from wolves before humans "adopted" them and altered them to suit our needs.

Regardless, the fact remains that divergence doesn't equal replacement. The conditions that lead to that divergence are irrelevant.

Peace and God bless!
Ghosty | 08.10.07 - 1:11 am | #

It is my understanding that most experts today no longer distinguish between canis lupus (the grey wolf) and canis familiaris (the dog), considering both to be one species, canis lupus.
Franklin Jennings | 08.10.07 - 8:01 am | #

"This is not questioning the idea at all of evolution; it is refining some of the specific points," Anton said. "This is a great example of what science does and religion doesn't do. It's a continous self-testing process."

This means that:

When science is right, it’s right. And when science is wrong, it’s still right.

When religion is wrong, it's wrong, and when religion is right, it's still wrong.

I love science, but the bias against religion I often see there is incredible.
James Isabella | 08.10.07 - 11:06 am | #

Mark, Nick, pd and other science and religion guys...

I got a giant surge in hits from the comment posted above, so I put up another post on the same topic, which is better and goes to the first principles of the dispute here:

http://thomism.wordpress.com/200...f-human-beings/

Thanks for reading!
A thomist | Homepage | 08.10.07 - 12:40 pm | #

It seems the issue here is not that species can diverge and evolve while leaving the earlier species intact, but that when two of the earliest human ancestor fossils are found to have lived contemporaneously suddenly there is no earlier species to turn to as the source the later species evolved from. At least that's the way I am reading the article.

And with evolution I've always thought that the mechanism is the theory. So it is a problem when evolutionists differ on how evolution occurred (i.e. punctuated equilibria).

Yet evolutionists continue to insist that of course their theory is true, they're just working some minor kinks out like why there's such a dearth of transitional fossils.
Brennan | Homepage | 08.10.07 - 7:46 pm | #

And with evolution I've always thought that the mechanism is the theory.

Unless it isn't. But whatever it is, it is definitely true, and only a religious fundy could think otherwise.
Zippy | Homepage | 08.10.07 - 8:49 pm | #

"Unless it isn't. But whatever it is, it is definitely true, and only a religious fundy could think otherwise."

Right. I was using a bit of hyperbole to illustrate the second part of your statement, the attitude that it is definitely true regardless of what mechanism has been proposed. And to say that without a proper mechanism, I don't think evolution could have occurred. The mechanism and theory are inextricably linked.
Brennan | Homepage | 08.10.07 - 11:34 pm | #

"It is my understanding that most experts today no longer distinguish between canis lupus (the grey wolf) and canis familiaris (the dog), considering both to be one species, canis lupus."

That is because our definition of "species" is based on the ability of two types interbreeding. If they can interbreed, they are one species. That doesn't mean that a dog can't be identified against a wolf; every breed of dog is distinguishable from a wolf, even the most "wolf-like" like the Siberian Husky and Alaskan Malemute. Fossil records show that there was a divergence between "dog" and "wolf" breeds of Canis Lupus before we have evidence of domestication. What most likely happened is that the "dog" branch of Canis Lupus, which hung out around human camps and settlements, was domesticated while the "wolf" breed was not.

A real division between the two types of Canis Lupus certainly occured, but didn't lead to an inability to interbreed and produce viable offspring. It's not as if a "species" suddenly appears and can't mix with anything else; our own genetic studies in the past few years have shown that human DNA is even compatible with mouse DNA. It's just that the chromosomes that convey that DNA don't match up in sexual reproduction. If you have two divergent lines that have compatible chromosomes, they will be able to reproduce, and some will even be able to produce fertile offspring. The further the chromosomes which carry the DNA diverge, the less likely fertile offspring become (though the pairing may still produce live offspring, such as in the case of mules).

"It seems the issue here is not that species can diverge and evolve while leaving the earlier species intact, but that when two of the earliest human ancestor fossils are found to have lived contemporaneously suddenly there is no earlier species to turn to as the source the later species evolved from. At least that's the way I am reading the article."

Not necessarily.

If one of the species is still "older", in the sense that it turns up earlier in the fossil record without the other accompanying it, then we can still conclude (based on the evidence so far) that the one that turns up earlier is the prototype, and the one that appears contemporaneously in a later record is the offshoot.

Look at it this way: you live contemporaneously with your parents. The fact that there is overlap in your lifespans doesn't prove that you appeared out of nowhere alongside your parents. Your parents existed before, and alongside you. In some cases the parents exist before, alongside, and after (in the case of the death of the child before the death of the parent). That doesn't in anyway take away from the child being the offshoot of the parent.

To take a Biblical example, Adam and Eve lived before Abel, lived alongside Abel, and lived after Abel. None of that shows that Abel existed as a seperate line of humanity from Adam and Eve.

Peace and God bless!
Ghosty | 08.11.07 - 12:08 am | #

Ghosty,

Thanks for the response. Yet the scientists do seem to be concluding that the newer fossil line did not evolve from the older one. I find it hard to believe that they are missing a basic concept like offshooting where the original line remains intact.
Brennan | Homepage | 08.11.07 - 2:04 am | #

What makes me chuckle is everytime an anthropologists finds half a jawbone in some sediment there seems to always follow the announcement that another early ancestor of man has been discovered and then the breathless exclamations about where this creature that completed what was attached to the jawbone fits into the puzzle of human evolution. Meanwhile, the great ape family has a noticable dearth of ancestors as these new discoveries never fit into their family tree at all. Of course, I am sure that Anton would claim that another problem he finds with religion is that it is much more humanocentric than science.
Michael | 08.11.07 - 8:44 am | #

Brennan,
The mechanism is only part of the theory. What is often called "total common ancestry" (TCI) is a separate hypothesis. This is the idea that all living and fossil species are descendants of a single species/population/individual organism.

In fact, the evidence for TCI, although circumstantial, is far more overwhelming than that for any one mechanism.

Michael Behe, famous/notorious ID thinker, for example, admits TCI while denying the mechanisms proposed for development of complexity.
CPA | Homepage | 08.11.07 - 12:27 pm | #

Brennan: "We actually haven't the first clue about the mechanism, but we know there has to be a purely materialist explanation because of coruse there is no God, or if there is one there are purely materialist explanations anyway" just doesn't have the ring of "Evolution is a FACT, and only a nutter could deny it!!!"

(The exclamation marks are mandatory, btw).
Zippy | Homepage | 08.11.07 - 3:35 pm | #

All well and good, but it raises questions, not answers them.
Franklin Jennings | 08.11.07 - 3:37 pm | #

"Evolution is a FACT, and only a nutter could deny it."

Apparently that is both Mark Shea's poisiton and the Pope's position.
Unapologetic Catholic | 08.11.07 - 4:36 pm | #

"We actually haven't the first clue about the mechanism, but we know there has to be a purely materialist explanation because of coruse there is no God, or if there is one there are purely materialist explanations anyway" just doesn't have the ring of "Evolution is a FACT, and only a nutter could deny it!!!"

Agreed.
Brennan | Homepage | 08.11.07 - 5:43 pm | #

Apparently that is both Mark Shea's poisiton and the Pope's position.

Yeah. I really enjoyed the encyclical Evolution Contra Nutters.
Zippy | Homepage | 08.11.07 - 5:58 pm | #

Only a nutter woudl think the Pope only speaks through encyclicals.

http://www.vatican.va/ roman_curi...ardship_en.html

"While the story of human origins is complex and subject to revision, physical anthropology and molecular biology combine to make a convincing case for the origin of the human species in Africa about 150,000 years ago in a humanoid population of common genetic lineage."

(The present text was approved in forma specifica, by the written ballots of the International Theological Commission. It was then submitted to Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, the President of the Commission, who has give his permission for its publication.)

"This clash is an absurdity because on one hand there is much scientific proof in favour of evolution, which appears as a reality that we must see and which enriches our understanding of life and being as such."

Pope Benedict, July 2007.

Ok, maybe "nutter" is too strong. "Absurd" works.
Unapologetic Catholic | 08.11.07 - 7:21 pm | #

"All well and good, but it raises questions, not answers them."

Yes, this is called science. :smile:
Ghosty | 08.11.07 - 7:42 pm | #

Oh, the clash between Darwinism and religion is nuts. If we supposed that RM/NS explained the development of life from precambrian prokaryotes to today it wouldn't threaten religion in the least. But Darwinism is terrible science.
Zippy | Homepage | 08.11.07 - 8:11 pm | #

This just in: Apoplectic Catholic quotes Pope out of context to support Darwinian Dogma. True meaning of quote immediately apparent to even shallow thinkers.
Franklin Jennings | 08.12.07 - 10:11 am | #

Hi,

Although it was a long time ago (mid-70s), I studied anthropology in college. In a lecture during one of my physical anthropology classes - the branch of anthropology that deals with this stuff - the professor said that if you lined up all of the skulls that have been placed in the genus Homo (habilis, erectus, neanderthalensis and sapiens), there is less variation to be found between them than if you looked at all of the skills of people looking today.

The fact is that the evidence for evolution is rather pathetic.

Gary
Gary J Sibio | Homepage | 08.15.07 - 11:57 am | #

Ghosty said >> Right, just like dogs must not be from wolves since they live contemporaneously with them.
Gary J Sibio | Homepage | 08.15.07 - 12:02 pm | #

"Although it was a long time ago (mid-70s), I studied anthropology in college."

And not a single thing has been accomplished in anthropology since.

In truth, science progresses a lot in 30 years. You could take your professor's statement unchallenged, or you could just look at the skulls themselves and form your own opinion. I personally think you weren't paying attention to your professor. The skulls, on a cursory view might be confused for a skull from a living person today. On any reasonably competent examination, they can be correctly identified, demostrating a smooth evolutionary history.

If you have friends whose skulls look like these guys you might need to find new friends.

http://www.austmus.gov.au/ human_...kulls_front.htm

http://www.austmus.gov.au/ human_...skulls_side.htm

Here's examples of the kinds of differences that at first glance don't appear to mean much but actually establish the evolutionary relationship.

The skulls are consistent with the dna record as well. Your prof had zero to say on dna because the science hadn't developed yet.

""Ghosty said >> Right, just like dogs must not be from wolves since they live contemporaneously with them.""

You understand Ghostly was being completely sarcatic, don't you.
Unapologetic Catholic | 08.15.07 - 2:41 pm | #

Dear Unapologetic (but, in this instance, still wrong) Catholic,

>> And not a single thing has been accomplished in anthropology since. > I personally think you weren't paying attention to your professor. > You understand Ghostly was being completely sarcatic, don't you.
Gary J Sibio | Homepage | 08.15.07 - 4:31 pm | #

Commenting by HaloScan