 |
Has anyone else heard the news reports over the past several years that scientist have found human remains that are older than apes, monkeys, chimpanzees, gorillas, orangutans proving that humans DID NOT evolve from these creatures?
Does anyone know where the human remains are being kept?
You know what this happens all the time.
IT DOESN'T PROVE ANYTHING
If you think LOGICALLY about it, rather than reading biased propaganda, then you'll see how simple this is.
Evolution hypothesises that we are descended from APES.
Now APES are the overall genus of monkey rather than a particular species such as chimpanzees, gorillas or orangutans.
No, have not heard that or seen that. It would be interesting though.
No, it doesn't prove anything.
Ultimately, we can only take what we hear as theories.
That is why I asked if anyone knows where the human remains are.
Researchers and scientists are known to do research to fit their needs for recognition or financial gain.
I did one Google search and found one article. I'm sure there are others. Some believe humans are 3/4 million years old and this article claims that the possible human remains are 7 million years old making humans older than monkeys, apes, gorillas, etc.
Skull shocker: a 7-million-year-old skull has scientists
I have heard reports of finding remains as old as 5.8 million years old but they weren't actually comparable to today's humans. The oldest remains found that have almost identical features to modern humans are 160,000 years old and they were found in Ethiopia. I haven't read any reports that state that any of these remains are considered older than "apes, monkeys, chimpanzees, gorillas, orangutans proving that humans DID NOT evolve from these creatures." Sorry. You need to find those reports and post them here.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dana2007
I would imagine they are the property of the Ethiopian government and may be kept for analysis there, but I don't know with any certainty who currently is holding them or where.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dana2007
Would like to hear from others.
I just read that article Dana. At the time that was written, they were still are arguing over whether it is actually an ancestor to modern day humans or apes. Without a pelvis or thigh bone, they can't be sure. I am not sure where you are getting your information that humans are older than apes. It doesn't mention that in the article. I think Ben is right, you need to leave out the separate species and stick with the genus of Ape vs Human.
I have heard reports over the years. There must be others who have too. Now with the internet, we might be able to get a clearer understanding of the claims
Of course, there is always going to be arguing and disagreement. Well, what will everyone do if their theories are shattered?
Still an interesting subject.
Anyone else have anything to add?
From what I am finding, scientists still aren't agreeing on whether it is an early human skull or an early ape skull, so it is still up in the air as to what it actually is. Here is another link I found regarding Toumai that has additional links in it. Fossil Hominids: Toumai
P.S. But it appears they are in agreement that it is not a modern day human skull.
The most recent opinion I can find says it was probably a common ancestor of apes and humans, probably not on the human side of the split from other apes. It was not bipedal, didn't have a big brain. In other words not very human. An ape this old might be ancestral to both humans AND apes. We are all one big family.
'Toumai man' is really a female ape, say anthropologists - Independent Online Edition > Science & Tech
asking, from the stuff I was reading I was gathering that Michel Brunet, the anthropologist who found the skull was the only one arguing it was an early human ancestor. The rest of the scientific community's opinion is that it is an early ancestor of the ape. Since nothing else appears to have been written refuting the general consensus of the scientific community since 2002, we have to assume that it is as they believe -- an early female ape's skull. I am not a scientist but the picture does look like an ape to me.
Dana, the earliest hominid fossil I can find info on is one that is dated back 33 million years. Here is a link: Aegyptopithecus zeuxis Skulls
Do you think either Toumai, the one you found, or this one, looks like a modern day human? It seems that, so far, we only have proof that apes are older than modern day man. Since you feel "with the internet, we might be able to get a clearer understanding of the claims", I look forward to looking at the evidence you can turn up that disproves scientific theory.
Of course there are fossils older than apes, chimps, etc. That's because what is modern day apes, chimps etc are themselves evolved from earlier primates.
Nice try Dana, but this does NOTHING to disprove Darwinism.
That's exactly my impression from a quick search. I think the discoverers wanted to be the discoverers of the oldest known hominin. I gather they got the media very excited back in 2002.Quote:
Originally Posted by RubyPitbull
Once you get back before the split between the ape lineage and the human lineage, it's hard to say whether the thing you are looking at is the "ancestor of an ape" or the "ancestor of a human." It is both, just like a grandfather can be the ancestor of several sets of cousins. You can't say to your cousin, "No. He's my grandfather, not yours!"
Wikipedia discusses this at length here:
Sahelanthropus tchadensis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Hello Dana:
Do you have a reason for NOT believing in evolution? I think most people who are as adamant as you are about these things, are afraid that if they're proven true, their entire religious belief systems go into the toilet.
Would that be you?
excon
excon makes an excellent point. Humans like all animals are territorial and will defend their territory/beliefs/livlihood at any cost even with lies.
Hello again, Dana:Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
I'll take that as a yes.
excon
Your response appears to be stating that Creationists will lie to defend their beliefs. I doubt they will appreciate that sentiment.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dana2007
Fortunately, humans, like many other social animals, also engage in cooperation and altruistic behavior, and they have a sense of right and wrong and of fairness. For example, some chimpanzees would rather refuse a treat than to get something not as good as another chimp is getting; they apparently think an uneven distribution is unfair. They'll act to make sure neither they nor the other chimp gets ANYthing. They are very into fairness! So, like chimps, humans also have an innate sense of fairness and of right and wrong. Many of us have been brought up to believe that lying is wrong. Most of us do not defend our territory "at any cost." whether that includes fighting or lying. Nobody here is lying to you, Dana. But you did sound as if you were arguing that lying was justified, as you feel something life threatening were at stake. What is it? Why not just ignore evolutionary biology if you don't like it the way you probably ignore modern cosmology, quantum physics, and geophysics (all scientific disciplines that conflict with the teachings of the Bible)?
But, Dana, I'm more interested in your idea that the question of how humans evolved is a question of "territory." Whose territory is this question? Do you believe that only certain people should be allowed to try to answer certain questions? Is that the idea? Do you feel you have the right to define the origin of species for all people, and that biologists--by explaining our origins in a way that's different from what you were taught--are encroachingn on "your" territory?
I'm seriously asking this. Does this question really feel like an issue of territory to you? I had never realized that before. I'll just say that it isn't a matter of territory for me. My feelings of territoriality related to my private property or, sometimes, ideas that I think are mine that someone else is taking credit for.
Obviously, how evolution works wasn't my idea. To me it's a matter of a common intellectual heritage that we all get to enjoy and share, something like a public park--like Central Park in New York, or even just a corner playground in a small town. I feel we are fortunate to have it and it saddens me that so many people are afraid to enter the playground and swing on the swings and slide down the slides, but I think that's their choice. What mystifies me is why they wouldn't want anyone else to go into the park. To me, if would be as if I were standing outside your church trying to stop people from going in,which I never would do.
Who can say why any animal is territorial. Maybe it was put in place as a sort of defence mechanism but humans make mud out of it with their greed and need for recognition.
Who is to speak for chimpanzes when it is based purely on observation and not on the actual opinion of a chimpanzee or any animal
Hello again, Dana:Quote:
Originally Posted by Dana2007
Living in a world where you think the accepted body of scientific knowledge is produced by people who are in need of those things, would be a scary place indeed.
How could you ever trust your doctor, or the medications he prescribes? How do you trust that you won't fall off the earth if you go in one direction too long? How do you trust the weatherman?
Is there some science you believe, but some you don't?
excon
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:38 PM. |