Australopithecus Sediba

1. "species" is an artificial construct in the paradigm. 2. Language CAN be traced--word etymology CAN be documented.

No. I simply apparently require more evidence to accept a tall tale.

Sure--you could make such a hypothesis--But a hypothesis is just a proposed idea, nothing more. It's not fact, and correlation is NOT causation. Period. Are you guys telling me that I--the theist--are more stringent in adherence to scientific methodology that you non-theists?

No--you can't and be promoting sound linguistic analysis (or scientific inquiry).

 

The ToE is stronger today than it had ever been. I would challenge anyone who thinks otherwise to present peer reviewed scientific discourse that explicitly challenges the descent of life from a universal common ancestor. There is no alternative scientific explanation for the condition and history of life as we know it.

 

I thought you said you were educated about DNA and inheritance. Your continuous belittlement of inheritance as a fallacious assertion says otherwise.

 

Creation, isn't an alternative theory? Peer reviewed means in the scientific community. Thats mostly, become politicized due to anti-religious bigotry. We have to compete with the predominant academic view away from the main stream secular institutions like schools and the government, because you can't deal with competition through ideas. Thats the reason it looks less valid than your theory. We are able now though to compete with the secular world view by using our private institutions like our churches and home schooling and religious universities. We also are competing now in the area of free enterprise selling books and a host of popular media that has been well received. Christian science isn't on the decline, its on the rise.

 

Of course you can.

I like the study of human evolution. humans have only existed for so long, there is a starting point that continues through today. One can study human evolution, in an isolated time frame without considering the origin of life.

 

It is easier to simply accept that a particular theory covers X instead of forcing it to cover Y and Z.

Evolution doesn't explain the origin of life? So what? What does this have to do with anything? Not a thing. A mythical sky fairy could have created the first single celled organisms and evolution would still be a valid theory. The origin of life is irrelevant to evolution.

This concept is not difficult to understand. But the very act of citing the issue, and clinging to it mercilessly is just a diversion. Just a silly play to move the debate away from the valid of the theory to something that the theory does not address and jump up and down in glee as if the theory of life's evolution has been destroyed.

The same as discrediting your physician because he cannot give a detailed explanation of quantum theory.

 

Did you not assert that inheritances is a fact and from that fact we can EXTRAPOLATE the history of evolution?

Your extrapolation is pure theory. There is NOTHING that requires there to be inter-relatedness among what are arbitrarily classified as "species" simply because there is a correlation in the "stuff" (DNA) upon which the arbitrary classification is based.

 

Then make your own thread on it--it's not this one.

 

Especially since about 1.6 - 1.8MYA there were 5 species alive at the same time (Paranthopus robusts, Parathropus boisei, Homo habilis, Homo erectus, and Homo Ergaster) that we have found evidence of.

A.sediba lived at the same time as H. habilis, H. ergaster, P. robustus, and P boisei (but before H Erectus).

To assume every fossilized “ancestor” of modern Homo sapiens is a direct ancestor in a chain of ancestry is a bit silly if you ask me.

the whole heel issue is not that big of a deal, its just means what we thought originally could be incorrect with this new evidence. the evidence will be sifted through, and a new conclusion will...get..ready for it...EVOLVE. yes the theory of evolution is also constantly evolving itself.

 

ROFLMFAO!!!

so if someone disagrees with you in the thread you created then they should leave your thread and make a new one? AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

sorry that is NOT how this site works.

should i put this new thread in a forum where it doesn't belong, like religion, or gun control, or abortion (just trying to follow your excellent lead).

 

I know and acknowledge your point above (I did in earlier posts as well), but you are missing the over-arching point--and the reason this thread is in the religion forum:

...why do you think it's here? What do you think ?

 

Frankly, you're off topic.


EDIT: Funny! I answered your post before you posted it!

 

Thanks. I see where you are in this.

 

Our system of creation, the belief that the universe and everything in it exists by divine plan, is directly at odds with what you say. So from the perspective of a system definition: The parts cannot be greater than the system that contains it. We can't separate the two for arguments sake, or else the premise of a higher being is lost immediately and thus validates your hypothesis.

 

And.........?

 

LOL No, of course not. Why on earth would you think that? *)

"Christian science" is a misnomer, which makes any rise of it a decline per definition. The only difference is that the poor souls indoctrinated with it have no idea.


*) That was a rhetorical question, by the way.

 

Nothing. I was just curious.

 

Uh, DNA inheritance IS a fact, yes. Once again this has been known for about 70 years. Honestly, if you're arguing that DNA inheritance is just speculation, you need to go back to school and study biology again.

Nobody said that it is "required", but considering what we do know about inheritance, DNA is clear evidence of inter-relatedness.

 

'kay....

 

Please--are you reading posts???

How so? give an example that shows inter-relatedness clearly.

 

/facepalm

I already have. You haven't given any reason as to why it isn't evidence for inter-relatedness.

 

OMG....Link to it then...

 

Link to what, then? Do you or do you not agree that DNA is inherited? Do you or do you not agree that organisms that are more closely related should have more DNA sequences in common?

 

I don't think you are being intellectually honest in this discussion at this point, or you are carrying on too many thread discussions at once and are losing the thread of this thread and our discussion. It's pointless to continue until you rectify that. You are repeating statements that have been answered and clarified. I don't know if you're trying to frame what I'm saying in the image of something you think you can argue against (which would be intellectually dishonest, a straw man, and pointless), or you're not reading responses thoroughly or you're confused among threads and commenters.

 

Not necessarily, I am not arguing in favor of a divine creator.

My point is just that the theory of evolution is separate from the origin of life. The two are isolated from each other. Evolution makes no attempt to argue for a particular beginning. Life could have come from a comet, placed here by an alien being, or created by a super natural being. What ever the cause, it does not impact the validity of evolution.

Anyone who claims other wise needs to educate themselves.