Proof Of Human Evolution

[arsenal]

news.yahoo.com

NAIROBI (AFP) - Four-million-year-old remains in Ethiopia have provided the first hard proof of a link between two key stages of human evolution by bridging the gap between pre-human species, paleontologists said.

Interesting. So if Darwin's theory of evolution is essential proved with this, does this effect or essentially dis-credit "Intelligent Design"?

[Cheese]

Oh boy.......cmon now we know the earth is only 10,000 years old...this MUST be a misprint or a lie!

[RougeUnderoos]

Intelligent design has been discredited. This won't change anything for the people that believe in that stuff. It's the work of the devil.

[FFR]

There is no intelligent design if you are talking about Natural Selection. Whether other people choose to believe in Intelligent Design over Evolution and Natural Selection is their choice. Natural Selection does not have a direction and does not have a final endpoint. Natural Selection weeds out what doesn't work and keeps what does. It has no brain and humans are not the top of the line and who knows in a million years maybe we will have evolved into something different. So if you are going to accept the fact that evolution does occur then Intelligent Design is "dis-credited." Darwin's theory of Natural Selection has been proven long before this through research on the Galapogus Islands.

[Kool Keef]

Originally Posted by arsenal

Interesting. So if Darwin's theory of evolution is essential proved with this, does this effect or essentially dis-credit "Intelligent Design"?

This doesn't actually PROVE anything. It's the opinion of the researchers that they have found proof. It will take years before the scientific community fully embraces that claim.

For the record: Intelligent Design is a crock.

[arsenal]

Originally Posted by FFR

There is no intelligent design if you are talking about Natural Selection. Whether other people choose to believe in Intelligent Design over Evolution and Natural Selection is their choice. Natural Selection does not have a direction and does not have a final endpoint. Natural Selection weeds out what doesn't work and keeps what does. It has no brain and humans are not the top of the line and who knows in a million years maybe we will have evolved into something different. So if you are going to accept the fact that evolution does occur then Intelligent Design is "dis-credited." Darwin's theory of Natural Selection has been proven long before this through research on the Galapogus Islands.

If it has been proven, then it would no longer be a theory correct? There is strong evidence that evolution is "what actually happens", but it is still a theory. A widely accepted thoery, that is taken as fact in many circles.
There are circles that do not believe in natural selection, and feel that creationism or intelligent design is the way things work.

All I am saying is that if this does in fact "seal the deal" for Darwin's theory, where do the creationists and intelligent design people go? There have been a number of schools in the "bible belt" teaching intelligent design, as part of their science classes. Would this not prove them wrong?

[Cheese]

Originally Posted by Kool Keef

This doesn't actually PROVE anything. It's the opinion of the researchers that they have found proof. It will take years before the scientific community fully embraces that claim.

For the record: Intelligent Design is a crock.

Nope not 100%...but maybe 95%?.....

For the first time, we found fossils that allow us to connect the first phase of human evolution and the second phase," Dr Berhane Asfaw, anthropologist and co-research director of the project that found the remains, told a news conference Wednesday in Addis Ababa. "The fossils represent unambiguous evidence for human evolution," he said

[Cheese]

Originally Posted by arsenal

All I am saying is that if this does in fact "seal the deal" for Darwin's theory, where do the creationists and intelligent design people go? There have been a number of schools in the "bible belt" teaching intelligent design, as part of their science classes. Would this not prove them wrong?

They still have an out...Intelligent design created evolution...and Darwin!

[Kool Keef]

Originally Posted by Cheese

Nope not 100%...but maybe 95%?.....

"The fossils represent unambiguous evidence for human evolution," he said

Yes, according to HIM. I'm not so sure he has the final say on this matter however. It is his find so it wouldn't be out of the realm of possibility that he may just be a bit prejudice.

[Frank the Tank]

Its all a bag of lies spread by infidels....

[FlamesAddiction]

I don't think it discredits intelligent design at all. Maybe the classical conservative Christian view, but many others believe in evolution as intelligent design.

And just a quick response to the first post:

This discovery does nothing to help Darwin. Darwin didn't invent the idea of evolution. He helped come up with Natural Selection as a mode for evolution. While this discovery helps prove evolution, it does not prove the mode for evolution.

(For the record, I believe that Darwin was right in that Natural Selection is one mode of evolution, but there are others as well).

[FFR]

Originally Posted by arsenal

If it has been proven, then it would no longer be a theory correct? There is strong evidence that evolution is "what actually happens", but it is still a theory. A widely accepted thoery, that is taken as fact in many circles.
There are circles that do not believe in natural selection, and feel that creationism or intelligent design is the way things work.

All I am saying is that if this does in fact "seal the deal" for Darwin's theory, where do the creationists and intelligent design people go? There have been a number of schools in the "bible belt" teaching intelligent design, as part of their science classes. Would this not prove them wrong?

Actually what I think I said was that Darwin's Theory of Natural Selection has been proven. And no one can say otherwise because it does occur. it has been proven with 30-50 year studies of finches in the Galapogus Islands. I never said that Evolution had been proven. Personally I believe in it. ANd if you believe in it then you cannot believe in Intelligent Design.

[troutman]

Originally Posted by FFR

Actually what I think I said was that Darwin's Theory of Natural Selection has been proven. And no one can say otherwise because it does occur. it has been proven with 30-50 year studies of finches in the Galapogus Islands. I never said that Evolution had been proven. Personally I believe in it. ANd if you believe in it then you cannot believe in Intelligent Design.

I think you have it a bit backwards. Evolution is a fact, and the evidence for it is overwhelming, even if there was not one fossil to look at.

The evidence for evolution:

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolib...0_0_0/lines_01

Natural Selection (variation, differential reproduction, and heredity) is by far the best theory that describes how evolution works. Intelligent design is a competing theory, one for which there is absolutely no evidence.

Mechanisms of evolution:

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolib...e/0_0_0/evo_14

I'm sure a biologist can explain this better than me.

FAQ:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/faq/

Isn't evolution just a theory that remains unproven?

In science, a theory is a rigorously tested statement of general principles that explains observable and recorded aspects of the world. A scientific theory therefore describes a higher level of understanding that ties "facts" together. A scientific theory stands until proven wrong -- it is never proven correct. The Darwinian theory of evolution has withstood the test of time and thousands of scientific experiments; nothing has disproved it since Darwin first proposed it more than 150 years ago. Indeed, many scientific advances, in a range of scientific disciplines including physics, geology, chemistry, and molecular biology, have supported, refined, and expanded evolutionary theory far beyond anything Darwin could have imagined.

How does natural selection work?

In the process of natural selection, individuals in a population who are well-adapted to a particular set of environmental conditions have an advantage over those who are not so well adapted. The advantage comes in the form of survival and reproductive success. For example, those individuals who are better able to find and use a food resource will, on average, live longer and produce more offspring than those who are less successful at finding food. Inherited traits that increase individuals' fitness are then passed to their offspring, thus giving the offspring the same advantages.

[FFR]

Ok. Let me see if I can explain this better. Natural Selection has been proven. The finches of the Galapogus Islands were observed throughout a drought period. Throughout the drought the averagbie size of the beaks of the birds increased and after the drought the average size of the beaks reduced slightly. The reason for this? When the drought happened the seeds that were the main food source for the finches, became hard and large isntead of soft and small. Therefore birds with small beaks were unable to find enough food and died off. Those birds with larger beaks coudl eat the harder seeds, therefore survived and passed on their genes to their offspring. Therefore natural selection has occured. Those of the species that are better suited for their environment survived and passed on their genes causing a shift in the DNA. Evolution did not occur as the species itself did not become a new species. Had the environment continued to change farther and farther away from the environment before the drought then the finches would have been forced to adapt, more natural selection would ahve occured and possibly evolution into a new species.

Evolution cannot be proven becuase it cannot be observed. It happens over millions and millions of years all becuase of small changes that occur due to Natural Selection. natural Selection is provable because you can observe it. It only takes decades or less for Natural Selection to occur.

I firmly believe in evolution and I believe there is tons of evidence supporting it however everthing that is said is an assumption without concrete proof. The fossils we find definately contribute to proving evolution but there is no way to prove it because we cannot observe it happening.

Anthropology and Human Evolution/Biology is what I do. This is the way it is. I would, however, like to know how you figure that there is overwhelming evidence even if we had found no fossils? (Its not an attack, I'm actually just curiuos what your viewpoint is, troutman).

Edit: Just one other thing...the theory exists in the fact that people assume that Natural Selection is driving evolution. There is tons of proof that that is what is happening but no one is "sure."

And I am well aware that there are other beliefs as to how speciation occurs and I respect that some people beleive in Creationism and Intelligent Design, however I will respectfully disagree with you.

[rubecube]

GOD WILL SMITE YOU ALL!!!

Signed,
Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, Billy Graham, Jimmy Swaggert, etc.

[troutman]

Evolution cannot be proven becuase it cannot be observed.

What about artificial selection? Fossils? Genetic back-dating?

Hasn't evolution been observed with fruit flies and other organisms with very short life spans?

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releas...fs-2003101.php

Competing fruit flies show evolution in action



An experiment by University of California, Davis graduate student Daniel Bolnick has captured evolution in action, provided support for a long-standing hypothesis in evolutionary biology, and could help explain how some new species arise from old ones.

[FFR]

It says right in the article that Bolnick did not actually observe the formation of an actual new species in the experiment. Therefore he has good proof of a theory but has not observed it happen. I've said that Natural SElection is Evolution in action but evolution takes too long to actually observe.

[troutman]

Thank you. Sometimes lay people like me get confused by the scientific usage of these terms.

[FFR]

I'm rather confused as to whether you were being scarcastic or not... I'm not trying to be rude or anything but there are a lot of misconceptions about how evolution works. Sorry if I sounded rude. Just trying to have a dicussion.

[Zarathustra]

At least we can all agree that I.D. is a farce and shouldn't be taught in Science class.