New Link in Human Evolution: Homo Naledi

[JonFromMinnesota]

I came across this story today.
Links to the peer reviewed paper and news article
http://elifesciences.org/content/4/e09560 (Paper)
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-34192447 (Article)

Discuss!

 

[Goonie]

It's already posted.
http://www.christianforums.com/threads/new-human-like-species-discovered-in-s-africa.7907101/

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

Ah didn't see this was posted already. My fault. Mods, please delete

 

[crjmurray]

In before thread closure!!!!!

 

[whois]

Ah didn't see this was posted already. My fault. Mods, please delete

how could you NOT know it?
you made a number of posts in it, and even included the link to elife.

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

how could you NOT know it?
you made a number of posts in it, and even included the link to elife.

Cool little feature on this site called time stamps to show you when posts were made.

 

[whois]

oops, my slip is showing

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

oops, my slip is showing

It's all good. I was caught off guard. I was like "Im pretty sure I totally missed the original post"

 

[dad]

I came across this story today.
Links to the peer reviewed paper and news article
http://elifesciences.org/content/4/e09560 (Paper)
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-34192447 (Article)

Discuss!

If shared physical characteristics make thei small brained monkey a man, or ancestor or men, then if an alien looks like man in any way they are your relative also?

 

[AnotherAtheist]

If shared physical characteristics make thei small brained monkey a man, or ancestor or men, then if an alien looks like man in any way they are your relative also?

If an alien came from a distant planet and we know that they had arrived on the Earth quite recently, then that would provide huge amounts of evidence that we and they aren't related.

Why do you need to create straw man versions of how evolutionary theory has been and is being developed? Why can't you address evolutionary theory as it is?

 

[justlookinla]

I came across this story today.
Links to the peer reviewed paper and news article
http://elifesciences.org/content/4/e09560 (Paper)
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-34192447 (Article)

Discuss!

You're trying too hard.

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

You're trying too hard.

This was a duplicate thread and you already argued ad nauseam in the other one. You don't understand evolution. Don't have time for your predictable strawmen.

 

[justlookinla]

This was a duplicate thread and you already argued ad nauseam in the other one. You don't understand evolution. Don't have time for your predictable strawmen.

Which form of evolution, the form of evolution where bacteria turn into bacteria (supported by the scientific method) or the form of evolution where an alleged life form turns into both pine trees and humans (pseudo-science not supported by the scientific method)?

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

Which form of evolution, the form of evolution where bacteria turn into bacteria (supported by the scientific method) or the form of evolution where an alleged life form turns into both pine trees and humans (pseudo-science not supported by the scientific method)?

You love a strawmen don't you? You already argued ad-nauseam about this in the other thread. Do you have anything better to do besides pretending to know what you're talking about?

 

[justlookinla]

You love a strawmen don't you? You already argued ad-nauseam about this in the other thread. Do you have anything better to do besides pretending to know what you're talking about?

I'm just wondering which view of evolution you're talking about. Sorry for asking.

 

[AnotherAtheist]

Which form of evolution, the form of evolution where bacteria turn into bacteria (supported by the scientific method) or the form of evolution where an alleged life form turns into both pine trees and humans (pseudo-science not supported by the scientific method)?

Which of the very many tiny evolutionary steps from basal forms of life to pine trees and humans do you find implausible?

I haven't been around here for a while, but I suspect that you don't understand evolutionary theory and the evolutionary pathways between the organisms you mention. If you don't understand that, then you can't comment on it with any degree of authority. Please prove me wrong by showing real knowledge of evolution.

 

[whois]

You love a strawmen don't you? You already argued ad-nauseam about this in the other thread. Do you have anything better to do besides pretending to know what you're talking about?

i think he has a point.
given what we should know, and computer algorithms, it should be a simple matter of proving evolutionary theory.
so far i've seen no such proof.
the only "proof" i've seen along these lines are "strawman" type of algorithms that do not model molecular/ genomic processes.

 

[justlookinla]

Which of the very many tiny evolutionary steps from basal forms of life to pine trees and humans do you find implausible?

No observation, nothing suggesting that humans and pine trees were created from the same life form by a random, mindless, meaningless, purposeless and goalless mechanism. There's certainly no evidence, based on the scientific method for such a view.

I haven't been around here for a while, but I suspect that you don't understand evolutionary theory and the evolutionary pathways between the organisms you mention.

I understand the claims of certain views of evolution (the how) is based on nothing more than guesses and suppositions.

If you don't understand that, then you can't comment on it with any degree of authority. Please prove me wrong by showing real knowledge of evolution.

Which form of evolution, the form based on the scientific method or the form based on pseudo-science?

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

I'm just wondering which view of evolution you're talking about. Sorry for asking.

There aren't different types of evolution. It's just evolution. You have no authority to speak on this as you have demonstrated to have 0 knowledge on the subject. You choose to embrace willful ignorance and play silly philosophical and theological games in a feeble and pathetic attempt to discredit the thousands of geologists, biologists anthropologists, chemists and other scientists with thousands of hours of lab, field and research time and claim that you know better than they do.

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

i think he has a point.
given what we should know, and computer algorithms, it should be a simple matter of proving evolutionary theory.
so far i've seen no such proof.
the only "proof" i've seen along these lines are "strawman" type of algorithms that do not model molecular/ genomic processes.

I wouldn't debate him. He'll play circular arguing games with you and his ignorance will just frustrate you.