Dismiss Notice
Thanks for being a member of our community. Please donate toward site expenses if you can.

Australopithecus Sediba

Discussion in 'Religion & Philosophy' started by Felicity, Sep 14, 2011.

Page 1 of 7
  1. Felicity

    Felicity Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2010
    Messages:
    3,262
    Likes Received:
    42
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Felicity, Sep 14, 2011
    #1
  2. perdidochas

    perdidochas Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2008
    Messages:
    27,293
    Likes Received:
    4,346
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    All it shows us is that science changes as new evidence appears.
     
    perdidochas, Sep 14, 2011
    #2
  3. Felicity

    Felicity Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2010
    Messages:
    3,262
    Likes Received:
    42
    Trophy Points:
    48
    yeah....


    ...like Copernican epicycles.
     
    Felicity, Sep 14, 2011
    #3
  4. GraspingforPeace

    GraspingforPeace Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2008
    Messages:
    14,162
    Likes Received:
    1,403
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Not even close. This discovery deals with evolutionary history, not the theory of evolution itself.
     
    GraspingforPeace, Sep 14, 2011
    #4
  5. Felicity

    Felicity Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2010
    Messages:
    3,262
    Likes Received:
    42
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Huh?...'splain the hair you're splitting.
     
    Felicity, Sep 14, 2011
    #5
  6. GraspingforPeace

    GraspingforPeace Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2008
    Messages:
    14,162
    Likes Received:
    1,403
    Trophy Points:
    113
    How does changing our evolutionary history change the theory of evolution? The two aren't related. One is a process, the other is a history of the process and its relation to our species.
     
    GraspingforPeace, Sep 14, 2011
    #6
  7. Felicity

    Felicity Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2010
    Messages:
    3,262
    Likes Received:
    42
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Read more about it. A. Sediba moves forward in evolutionary "history" in some regard, but BACKWARD in other areas. This shows that there is a flaw in THEORY.
     
    Felicity, Sep 14, 2011
    #7
  8. GraspingforPeace

    GraspingforPeace Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2008
    Messages:
    14,162
    Likes Received:
    1,403
    Trophy Points:
    113
    How does it show that there is a flaw in the theory? What part specifically does it show is flawed?
     
    GraspingforPeace, Sep 14, 2011
    #8
  9. Panzerkampfwagen

    Panzerkampfwagen New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2010
    Messages:
    11,570
    Likes Received:
    152
    Trophy Points:
    0
    It isn't mentioned in the bible, hence he posted a science story in the religion subforum.
     
    Panzerkampfwagen, Sep 14, 2011
    #9
  10. Panzerkampfwagen

    Panzerkampfwagen New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2010
    Messages:
    11,570
    Likes Received:
    152
    Trophy Points:
    0
    And of course it can be falsified. Show us a fossil rabbit from the precambrian. Just one.
     
    Panzerkampfwagen, Sep 14, 2011
    #10
  11. JavaBlack

    JavaBlack New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2005
    Messages:
    21,729
    Likes Received:
    32
    Trophy Points:
    0
    "That may force a re-evaluation of the process of evolution because many researchers had previously associated development of a human-like pelvis with enlargement of the brain, but in A. sediba the brain was still small"

    This actually makes more sense to me than the assumptino that brain growth came first or simultaneously.

    The old theory seems to be that the big hips led to a higher survival rate for big-headed people.
    The new one, if I understand it right, is that big hips preceded bigger brains (and made it possible) and the bigger brains increased the chances of survival.

    It makes more sense that big hips would facilitate the advancement of big brains.
    On reflection it makes less sense that big hips increased survival for big brains, because then it would seem just as likely that the species would select for small brains (being that humans would lack the structure necessary for successful birth in most cases).

    At least that's if I'm understanding what's changed.
     
    JavaBlack, Sep 15, 2011
    #11
  12. Felicity

    Felicity Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2010
    Messages:
    3,262
    Likes Received:
    42
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Tired........................
     
    Felicity, Sep 15, 2011
    #12
  13. Felicity

    Felicity Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2010
    Messages:
    3,262
    Likes Received:
    42
    Trophy Points:
    48
    That--and teeth, and fingers, and arm length...
     
    Felicity, Sep 15, 2011
    #13
  14. Panzerkampfwagen

    Panzerkampfwagen New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2010
    Messages:
    11,570
    Likes Received:
    152
    Trophy Points:
    0
    So what, can't be done?
     
    Panzerkampfwagen, Sep 15, 2011
    #14
  15. Gator Monroe

    Gator Monroe Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2011
    Messages:
    5,685
    Likes Received:
    155
    Trophy Points:
    63
    The Out of Africa claims will fall away eventuially .:date:
     
    Gator Monroe, Sep 15, 2011
    #15
  16. Margot

    Margot Account closed, not banned

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2010
    Messages:
    62,072
    Likes Received:
    345
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Margot, Sep 15, 2011
    #16
  17. FreeWare

    FreeWare Active Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 12, 2009
    Messages:
    7,350
    Likes Received:
    25
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Maybe evidence will point to another scenario and maybe it won't. Is it important to you?
     
    FreeWare, Sep 15, 2011
    #17
  18. Gator Monroe

    Gator Monroe Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2011
    Messages:
    5,685
    Likes Received:
    155
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Not as Important as other Pre Antediluvian finds ...
     
    Gator Monroe, Sep 15, 2011
    #18
  19. Wolverine

    Wolverine New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2006
    Messages:
    16,105
    Likes Received:
    234
    Trophy Points:
    0
    If they found rabbits in pre-Cambrian rocks, then the theory would be falsified. Evolution is falsifiable, and you do not have a more viable and testable candidate to take its place.
     
    Wolverine, Sep 15, 2011
    #19
  20. Margot

    Margot Account closed, not banned

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2010
    Messages:
    62,072
    Likes Received:
    345
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Before 2900 BC?
     
    Margot, Sep 15, 2011
    #20
  21. Panzerkampfwagen

    Panzerkampfwagen New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2010
    Messages:
    11,570
    Likes Received:
    152
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The problem with creationists is that since they have faith evolution is wrong and there isn't any evidence against it it must mean it isn't falsifiable instead of the more logical answer that they're wrong.
     
    Panzerkampfwagen, Sep 15, 2011
    #21
  22. Wolverine

    Wolverine New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2006
    Messages:
    16,105
    Likes Received:
    234
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Bingo. The poremise of the OP is totally off, I mean seriously.

    "Game changer" does not discredit evolution to reduce it down to "just a theory". The remains found do not contradict anything, only serve to enhance it. This fact is clear as day. I have a hard time taking those who jump up and down claiming something is false, when they themselves haven't a (*)(*)(*)(*)ing clue. There is a reason why ID and creationism is barred from public schools, and it certainly is not because there is some vast conspiracy against the poor oppressed Christians.
     
    Wolverine, Sep 15, 2011
    #22
  23. SigTurner

    SigTurner New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2010
    Messages:
    1,093
    Likes Received:
    16
    Trophy Points:
    0
    If anything, this discovery lends support to the theory of evolution, at least in the area of human evolution. It certainly does not undermine it.


    BTW: a theory is a lot more "falsifiable" than a bible tale.
     
    SigTurner, Sep 15, 2011
    #23
  24. FreeWare

    FreeWare Active Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 12, 2009
    Messages:
    7,350
    Likes Received:
    25
    Trophy Points:
    38
    May I ask how pre-Antediluvian finds are important to you?

    Also, just to specify terminology, with time before the Biblical Antediluvian period, do you mean before Biblical creation?
     
    FreeWare, Sep 16, 2011
    #24
  25. Someone

    Someone New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2010
    Messages:
    7,780
    Likes Received:
    84
    Trophy Points:
    0
    What? How does a find showing more clearly the link between homo habilis and australopithecines reflect poorly on the theory of evolution?
     
    Someone, Sep 16, 2011
    #25
Page 1 of 7

Share This Page