New human-like species discovered in S Africa

[Cearbhall]

I looked back on the editing history of the Wikipedia page. The page was only created yesterday, but it's already fairly comprehensive. It's being updated several times an hour.

...just wondering.....

at what point does "human-like" become "human"?

"Human" usually only refers to homo sapiens sapiens.

 

[brinny]

I looked back on the editing history of the Wikipedia page. The page was only created yesterday, but it's already fairly comprehensive. It's being updated several times an hour.

"Human" usually only refers to homo sapiens sapiens.

usually?

 

[Cearbhall]

usually?

Well, some people say that "human" refers to homo sapiens, but we're not the only homo sapiens subspecies that has ever existed. There's homo sapiens idaltu, and there's even still some debate about whether Neanderthals were a homo sapiens subspecies.

 

[brinny]

Well, some people say that "human" refers to homo sapiens, but we're not the only homo sapiens subspecies that has ever existed. There's homo sapiens idaltu, and there's even still some debate about whether Neanderthals were a homo sapiens subspecies.

...it's a matter of opinion then in what defines a human being?

 

[Cearbhall]

...it's a matter of opinion then in what defines a human being?

I'm not sure what you mean. That's not quite the word I would use to describe the process of scientific study, but yes, there are multiple conclusions alive in the scientific community on the subject of which extinct species fall within homo sapiens.

I did a quick Google search and found this paper, though I haven't read it: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14745010/

 

[justlookinla]

My former biology teacher Tweeted about this discovery this morning! It's fantastically exciting. I read the National Geographic article she shared:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2015/09/150910-human-evolution-change/

I think he's trying for the Abe Lincoln look. Wonder if he's a straight razor user like Abe?

 

[crjmurray]

I think he's trying for the Abe Lincoln look. Wonder if he's a straight razor user like Abe?

"Four score and three moons ago.... EEEE!!! EEEE!!!"

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

As I see it from my perspective, you are equating "no evidence" with "no evidence generated."

I do not believe that God's acts of calling the universe into existence from nothing (creatio ex nihilo) would have generated any evidence.

Just by its very nature, it would not leave any evidence.

I even have a series of challenge threads to demonstrate that anyone who thinks God left evidence behind is not thinking correctly.

QV please:

My Apple Challenge

My Apple Challenge II

My Apple Challenge III

My Apple Challenge IV

God created the universe from nothing.

That means that, in the beginning, the amount of mass/energy was zero.

Then, through a series of divine fiats, God raised it to its current level that it is today; then "locked it in" with the Law of Conservation.

What does something out of nothing have to do with the theory of evolution? Evolution doesn't explain the origin of life or the origin of the universe. It only explains the origin of species. Once again, you don't understand it.

 

[justlookinla]

What does something out of nothing have to do with the theory of evolution? Evolution doesn't explain the origin of life or the origin of the universe. It only explains the origin of species. Once again, you don't understand it.

The evolutionary view that moths turn into moths and finches into finches doesn't explain the origin of species. Neither does the evolutionary view of Darwinist evolution.

 

[AV1611VET]

What does something out of nothing have to do with the theory of evolution?

Nothing.

Evolution doesn't explain the origin of life or the origin of the universe.

Yes, actually, it does.

If you take away the compartmentalization of the term "theory of evolution," you will see that biological evolution is just one in about six other forms of evolution that are collectively referred to as cosmic evolution.

Once a person buys into the idea of [biological] evolution, he has to readjust his thinking to include deep time: something the Bible does not allow for.

It only explains the origin of species.

Then it can start at the beginning, and explain how this "species" we call "angels" arrived on the scene sans biological evolution.

The universe was teaming with life before plant life even showed up.

Once again, you don't understand it.

Fair enough.

I don't understand evolution, and you don't understand creationism.

I vote we let the Bible break the tie.

What say you?

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

The evolutionary view that moths turn into moths and finches into finches doesn't explain the origin of species. Neither does the evolutionary view of Darwinist evolution.

It supports one of the hypothesis' of evolution "Species evolve by natural selection". The moths and finch studies show genetic mutation. So you're just pointing out a line of evidence that supports the theory.

 

[justlookinla]

It supports one of the hypothesis' of evolution "Species evolve by natural selection". The moths and finch studies show genetic mutation. So you're just pointing out a line of evidence that supports the theory.

One can make any claim they wish, but there's no evidence, based on the scientific method for the claim that humanity is the product of Darwinist evolution.

There is evidence however for another evolutionary view, which isn't Darwinist evolution, that moths evolve into moths, finches into finches, ect.

Depends on what evolutionary view one is promoting.

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

Nothing.Yes, actually, it does.

If you take away the compartmentalization of the term "theory of evolution," you will see that biological evolution is just one in about six other forms of evolution that are collectively referred to as cosmic evolution.

Once a person buys into the idea of [biological] evolution, he has to readjust his thinking to include deep time: something the Bible does not allow for.Then it can start at the beginning, and explain how this "species" we call "angels" arrived on the scene sans biological evolution.

The universe was teaming with life before plant life even showed up.Fair enough.

I don't understand evolution, and you don't understand creationism.

I vote we let the Bible break the tie.

What say you?

Two hypothesis in "The Origin of Species"
1. All living things on earth are related
2. Species evolved by natural selection.

I'm not sure what you mean by having to readjust our thinking after understanding evolution by natural selection. If you want to talk about cosmos or abiogenesis, that is an entirely different topic.

I understand creationism's claim. And I understand it doesn't have evidence to support it.
We can let the bible break the tie once you demonstrate it to be true with verifiable evidence.

What is your argument against the OP? You have only dismissed it without a rebuttal other than "I don't believe this".

 

[AV1611VET]

It supports one of the hypothesis' of evolution "Species evolve by natural selection".

Evolution says a genus eventually gave rise to another genus via speciation.

Genus A → species → species → species → Genus B

And that's just bologna.

 

[Cearbhall]

The evolutionary view that moths turn into moths and finches into finches doesn't explain the origin of species. Neither does the evolutionary view of Darwinist evolution.

Alright, what's your flawless scientific theory that explains how countless different species appeared over time if it wasn't due to macroevolution? Has some mischievous alien species been spitting new organisms out of a machine and dropping them on our planet every so often for billions of years, or are you suggesting that homo sapiens were able to survive in molten lava?

 

[justlookinla]

Two hypothesis in "The Origin of Species"
1. All living things on earth are related
2. Species evolved by natural selection.

I'm not sure what you mean by having to readjust our thinking after understanding evolution by natural selection. If you want to talk about cosmos or abiogenesis, that is an entirely different topic.

I understand creationism's claim. And I understand it doesn't have evidence to support it.
We can let the bible break the tie once you demonstrate it to be true with verifiable evidence.

What is your argument against the OP? You have only dismissed it without a rebuttal other than "I don't believe this".

Natural selection doesn't produce new life forms, natural selection only acts on an existing life form.

 

[justlookinla]

Alright, what's your flawless scientific theory that explains how countless different species appeared over time if it wasn't due to macroevolution?

Where's your flawless scientific evidence that all of life we observe today is the result of only random, mindless, meaningless, purposeless and goalless mechanisms?

There ain't none.

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

One can make any claim they wish, but there's no evidence, based on the scientific method for the claim that humanity is the product of Darwinist evolution.

There is evidence however for another evolutionary view, which isn't Darwinist evolution, that moths evolve into moths, finches into finches, ect.

Depends on what evolutionary view one is promoting.

It's all evolution. There isn't a "type" of evolution. Please clarify what you are talking about. That doesn't make sense.
Genetic mutation that reveal new features is a product of evolution. I think I understand the argument you're trying to make and correct me if I am wrong but "Microevolution happens but not macro" Which doesn't make sense. It's like saying I can drive my car down the street but it's impossible to drive it across the country.

 

[Cearbhall]

Where's your flawless scientific evidence that all of life we observe today is the result of only random, mindless, meaningless, purposeless and goalless mechanisms?

There ain't none.

There's plenty of evidence, but I doubt you're interested in accepting it, so regardless, the fact that it exists means that some process brought it all into being. If you don't have a better theory than macroevolution, then don't expect people to flock to you.

 

[Ada Lovelace]

There was an interesting segment about this on the CBS National News tonight! The cave was so narrow they needed skilled and intrepid paleontologists who are very slender and agile. It was outrageously dangerous, daunting, and uncomfortable conditions, and yet they persevered to fulfill this invaluable mission. They were described as being "underground astronauts bolding exploring new frontiers." They had cameras on their bodies, and it was really cool to see what they saw. It's believed that the remains were deliberately placed in their location by their contemporaries. The dating hasn't been finalized, but it's preliminarily estimated to be around 2 million years old.

I just think it's really awe-inspiring that scientists are willing to put themselves at such tremendous risk and endure claustrophobic spaces, 99% humidity, and other difficulties to be in the service of mankind. It makes me think about Scott Kelly who is spending in a year in space to benefit science. They're awesome.