Earliest hominids

[lucaspa]

The January 2003 issue of Scientific American has a review article on the 3 new hominids from 6 million years ago. 

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?colID=1&articleID=00045EDE-C078-1DF7-9733809EC588EEDF  K Wong, An ancestor to call our own. Scientific American, Jan. 203

A couple of things to note:

1. The mixture, or mosaic, of chimp and hominid features in the different specimens.  There are some good pictures detailing these

2. The argument about which of the fossils is in the hominid line.  This is how science works. What the data shows is that all 3 fossils are very close to the common ancestor of chimps and humans. Naturally, each paleontologist wants his fossil to be in the line that led to us. There's more prestige that way; the chimp line is not going to be mentioned nearly as often in textbooks, lay articles, and reviews. So each paleontologist is trying to define the characteristics that define the hominid line and each wants them to be the characteristics his fossil has. Big surprise.  It will take time and more data for the controversy to sort itself out.

One is being petty enough to try to deny the claim of Brunet. Shows that scientists are also human.

However, what you have to note is the commonality here.  IF evolution is correct, then a prediction is that there is a common ancestor of chimps and humans. Also, since evolution works by gradual changes, the first few species after that split, on either side, are going to look very similar and not have much in the way of either modern chimp or modern human features. 

Guess what, all 3 fossils fit that prediction. Once more evolution is supported and creationism falsified, because creationism says humans came into existence fully formed, therefore such fossils as these should not exist.  Yet there they are.

 

[OldBadfish]

Even Darwin acknowledged that if numerous species have really started into life at once, the fact would be fatal to the theory of evolution.

Speculation is free, we know nothing about regulatory master genes.

It's either evolution via mutation and adaptation, or multi specied evolution, both had a beginning.

The Mutation theory has been already falsified, the fact that mutations are damaging to the organism seems hard to reconcile with the view that mutation (adaptation to environment through genetic mutation) is the source of raw materials for evolution. It is a destructive rather than a constructive process.

And if evolutionists believe many different species with different genes evolved, then one has to wonder where they came from in the first place.

So, there are scientists that are acknowledging that all species are consistent with intelligent design, and have not been proved or are inconsistent with total evolution from one single source.

So, the most reasonable conclusion would be spontaneous creation by way of intelligent design of a multitude of species and organisms.

IMHO.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Originally posted by Badfish
The Mutation theory has been already falsified, the fact that mutations are damaging to the organism seems hard to reconcile with the view that mutation (adaptation to environment through genetic mutation) is the source of raw materials for evolution. It is a destructive rather than a constructive process.

Really? Can you back this claim up? Some scientific literature would be nice.

 

[Orihalcon]

the flu virus's DNA (or RNA, whatever it uses) mutates so often it is able to re-infect people every winter. many species of bacteria are now immune to penicillin and several other antibiotics due to over-use. antibiotics have only been readily available for less than a century, and we've seen a large shift in the genetic makeup of bacteria. We can see this kind of evolution because bacteria and viruses reproduce so quickly.

 

[lucaspa]

Originally posted by Badfish Even Darwin acknowledged that if numerous species have really started into life at once, the fact would be fatal to the theory of evolution.

Quote, please? And what does that have to do with the data above?

Speculation is free, we know nothing about regulatory master genes.

Never say we don't know anything without doing a PubMed search. As it is, we know quite a bit about regulatory genes and are learning more all the time. For instance, the difference between a tail and not a tail is one amino acid in one regulatory gene Manx.

It's either evolution via mutation and adaptation, or multi specied evolution, both had a beginning.

The Mutation theory has been already falsified, the fact that mutations are damaging to the organism seems hard to reconcile with the view that mutation (adaptation to environment through genetic mutation) is the source of raw materials for evolution. It is a destructive rather than a constructive process.

It's evolution through descent with modification. If you are going to present an idea, you are obligated to present it honestly.  Most mutations are neutral with respect to their environment. Some are beneficial with respect to the environment.  Only a small minority (2.6 per thousand) are outright harmful. Again, do your PubMed search and look for the papers.  Oh, heck, I'll give you a few:

http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoMutations.html
http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoEvidence.html

PD Keightley and A Caballero, Genomic mutation rates for lifetime reproductive output and lifespan in Caenorhabditis elegans.  Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 94: 3823-3827, 1997

And if evolutionists believe many different species with different genes evolved, then one has to wonder where they came from in the first place.

Where the genes came from?  Gene duplication, chromosome duplication, insertion or deletion mutations, transpositions, etc. The mechanisms are well-documented.

So, there are scientists that are acknowledging that all species are consistent with intelligent design, and have not been proved or are inconsistent with total evolution from one single source.

And the data in the first post falsified that idea.  If humans were manufactured by an intelligence rather than evolved from a common ancestor with chimps, then Toumai and the other fossils wouldn't be there. Deductive logic.