In goes another nail: Pierolapithecus catalaunicus

[Ophiolite]

The alternative explanation is that the good Doctor's character assessment is accurate.
However, while resorting to name calling can produce a short term wave of satsifaction it lacks the intellectual challenge of arguing the case.
I hope you will find it agreeable that I intend to tackle, in a variety of ways if necessary, a single point you have made in your preceding posts. [I may occasionally diverge if you say something I consider especially noteworthy, and I hope you will overlook any obscenities, real or implied I send in your direction. They will merely indicate my passion for good debate and my frustration at my inadequate linguistic skills.]
You note that there are only two ways that fossils can be formed. Animals are trapped in tar pits or they are rapidly covered with sediments. Moreover, you believe that these two processes occur rapidly. Please correct me if I have misinterpreted you in any way.
You imply, and here I ask for clarification, that fossils are not old. That they are at most thousands(?) of years old rather than millions.
Now, my first substantive question. What is it that leads you to disagree with the work of thousands of researchers, who have studied fossils and fossilisation? I can think of three possibilities, but acknowledge that there may be others: detailed personal study of the phenomena, divine revelation, blind arrogance. I await your reply with interest.

 

[David F.]

using dogs bad comparison, dogs have been inter breed for centurys by man, man sped up the evolutionary process in canines and felines and cattle and pigs and sheep, and chickens, use wild animals in your comparison that would make more sense.
oh but you cant.

Why use wild animals? You obviously don't understand what evolution is. There is NO EVOLUTION in dog breeds. This is simply mixing genes to get extreme results. Evolution requires that the genes change. There is no change going on here, only selective breeding, which is not evolutionary at all.

The point I was making is that you can't tell if there is an evolutionary process going on simply by looking at size or shape. This is just another hoax (I have no doubt that the monkey did exist, but there is NOTHING which makes it a part of any evolution chain from some ancient anthropoid to modern man). lol

If anyone can post some more details from the SCIENCE article, I would be very interested. I can't get to the article on their web site and I certainly am not going to give that organization any of my money.

 

[David F.]

The alternative explanation is that the good Doctor's character assessment is accurate.
However, while resorting to name calling can produce a short term wave of satsifaction it lacks the intellectual challenge of arguing the case.
I hope you will find it agreeable that I intend to tackle, in a variety of ways if necessary, a single point you have made in your preceding posts. [I may occasionally diverge if you say something I consider especially noteworthy, and I hope you will overlook any obscenities, real or implied I send in your direction. They will merely indicate my passion for good debate and my frustration at my inadequate linguistic skills.

Please feel free to discuss my points. I look forward to an intellectual disagreement (the good doctor probably doesn't have the capacity to engage, so we will leave him out).

You note that there are only two ways that fossils can be formed. Animals are trapped in tar pits or they are rapidly covered with sediments. Moreover, you believe that these two processes occur rapidly. Please correct me if I have misinterpreted you in any way.

You imply, and here I ask for clarification, that fossils are not old. That they are at most thousands(?) of years old rather than millions.
Now, my first substantive question. What is it that leads you to disagree with the work of thousands of researchers, who have studied fossils and fossilisation? I can think of three possibilities, but acknowledge that there may be others: detailed personal study of the phenomena, divine revelation, blind arrogance. I await your reply with interest.

I did not imply that fossils are not old. I simply stated that it does not take long periods of time (geologically speaking) to form the fossils. Once the fossils are fomed, they should exist for some time - they are made of rock after all. The discussion began with someone pointing out that the bones found in this particular case were fossils and thus must be very old. (Ignoring the fact that these bones were in fact not fossilized). Just because we have a fossil does not indicate great age. The fossil could be newly formed (newly in a geological sense - decades or centuries) or the fossil could be quite old. The fact that there is a fossil does not indicate great age (it might or it might not - the facts do not say).

A fig for all the thousands of researchers in the world! Numbers do not proclaim truth. In fact, your argument could be used in the past to prove the world was flat, or that big objects fall faster than smaller objects. Besides, I am not alone in my interpretations of the facts, you just don't believe those on my side. Wouldn't it be better just to ignore ALL theories and stick to the facts?

 

[guthrie]

I believe I said a few decades, not a few years, although you may be right and just a few years may be sufficient. In any case, the process cannot take any longer than it takes for the organic to decay. A few decades may indeed be too long a period of time. (I know if I leave meat out on my kitchen counter, it starts to decay pretty fast.) The rapid decay rate of organics is one of the reasons it must be deeply covered or in a tar pit - to seal the specimen away from air and thus slow the decay rate. If the organic decays too fast, the fossile does not have time to form.
Yes, I am sure. There are only two known conditions under which fossils can be formed. Perhaps you would like to bless us with a third option which no one knows about?

WEll, the process can take as long as it likes. The point is that sealed away from the oxygen, in anaerobic conditions, the body will not decay in the standard way. What happens in fossilisation is that the normal minerals are replaced with others that infiltrate the physical structures of the body and precipitate. This happens quite slowly, depending upon things like the movement of groundwater and suchlike. Many fossils found have only been of hard calcinous parts of animals, such as their skeletons, because those bits survive better than the organics. I fail to see why the organics ahve anything to do with it since we have so many fossils covering the inorganic parts of animals.

Do you know how Ice Cores are dated? There is no radioactivity to measure and no landmarks (timemarks) along the way. Ice dating is done in the same way that tree dating is done - by counting rings or layers. The problem of course is that you have to know how long a period is represented by the ring or layer. It used to be thought that tree rings represented a summer/winter cycle. It turns out that this is not true. Tree rings are laid down based upon weather patterns and wet/dry cycles. While some locations have only one wet season per year, others have two, or even the rare three seasons per year.

Really? No radioactive dating at all? Except for the oxygen isotope, deutrium/ hydrogen and beryllium methods used on ice samples, such as the Vostok core which is estimated to be about 160,000 years old, plus or minus 15,000 years. A pretty big error margin, but larger than a few millenia.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/icecores.html

In the same way, Ice Archeologists assumed that layers of ice were laid down as summer and winter layers but this is also turning out to be incorrect. Ice layers are laid down by storms and then sunny periods between storms.

How do you know? Got any evidence?

But, let's ignore these problems and use your premise. How is 5,000 years a problem? It fits nicely with the biblical creation story... but then, I didn't mention divine intervention at all, you did.

Maybe a tactical error. After all, I had assumed that a statement like:

"As for the polar ice caps, it appears that they may have formed, at least partially, prior to the "six days of creation"."

Meant that you were looking at it from a biblical and thus God creation point of view.

P.S.
Have you been back to the "Republicans Don't Understand Capitalism" thread recently?

 

[David F.]

Please don't misunderstand my intentions. I am not here to prove Creation - a supernateral event in the distant past is totally unprovable - which doesn't make it false, just not available for examination. I am not at all interested in such a vain quest.

However, if I was to argue Creation, I would have to point out that the Genesis story starts, before the first day, as a water-filled world with something (cloud layer?) which obscured the light. No mention is made of how this came to be or how long it took other than the statement - God Created the Heavens and the Earth (not a very descriptive verse). Could Ice have been forming long before the so called "Six Days of Creation" - yes it could, which makes it an interesting marker.

I am very interested in knocking down silly ideas like Evolution of life from non-life or the Evolution of reptiles into mammels and birds - Fish simply do not become horses.

I'm looking at your Ice Core dating post, and I will respond later. I'm not sure what you mean by non-organic parts of animals - I assume you mean bones but then bones are organic as well and do decay, just not as fast as flesh.

No, I haven't been back to "Republicans Don't Understand Capitalism" but now that you mention it, I will.

 

[audible]

using dogs bad comparison, dogs have been inter breed for centurys by man, man sped up the evolutionary process in canines and felines and cattle and pigs and sheep, and chickens, use wild animals in your comparison that would make more sense.

oh but you cant.

Why use wild animals? You obviously don't understand what evolution is. There is NO EVOLUTION in dog breeds. This is simply mixing genes to get extreme results. Evolution requires that the genes change. There is no change going on here, only selective breeding, which is not evolutionary at all.

The point I was making is that you can't tell if there is an evolutionary process going on simply by looking at size or shape. This is just another hoax (I have no doubt that the monkey did exist, but there is NOTHING which makes it a part of any evolution chain from some ancient anthropoid to modern man). lol

If anyone can post some more details from the SCIENCE article, I would be very interested. I can't get to the article on their web site and I certainly am not going to give that organization any of my money.

ROFLMAO: no it's you that does not understand:
selective breeding is just sped up evolution, what could of taken centurys or more, through mans intervention speeds up.

wikipedia.com:
Evolution generally refers to any process of change over time. However, in the context of the life sciences, evolution is a change in the genetic makeup of a group—a population of interbreeding individuals within a species.


dictionary.com
ev·o·lu·tion
Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of new species.

and of course you can have size and shape changes, you chose dogs, take a look at the way the british bulldog, has change in size and shape over the centurys, or the american cocker spanial.
evolution by mans hand, total size and shape change.
if these same dogs had changed over, thousands of years, without mans help
there bones may have become fossilised.

 

[David F.]

wikipedia.com:
Evolution generally refers to any process of change over time. However, in the context of the life sciences, evolution is a change in the genetic makeup of a group—a population of interbreeding individuals within a species.

dictionary.com
ev·o·lu·tion
Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of new species.

Yes, you are right, the generic word EVOLUTION simply means change over time. The coast line could be said to be Evolving as the waves erode the shore.

I can and have, on other threads, provided quotes from major scientists and major publications which disagree with the definitions you have provided. I am using the word Evolution in the same way Darwin used it and in the same way it is used by scientists in the field today.

I am describing BIOLOGICAL EVOLUTION, which requires change in the DNA of the specimen over the generations. Mixing genes through breeding is NOT Biological Evolution and cannot in any way be compared with making monkeys into humans (which is the whole point of this thread, in case you failed to notice). Changing monkeys into People requires new/different genes through DNA mutation (genetic variation). Changing a wolf or wild dog into a Chihuahua DOES NOT require different genes or a change in genes - only selective breeding to pick the right genes.

Each species (those animals who can successfully breed) have a large, but not infinite number of genes (about 20,000 to 25,000 in humans). Breeding simply picks a few of those genes (23 pairs of chromosones in humans with each chromosone containing a number of genes) and builds the animal based on those genes (my two genes for eye color may be different from your genes for eye color - same gene with slightly different genetic spelling). Humans and monkeys have different genes and cannot breed. To change a monkey into a human requires mutation or some other process which changes the genes, not just picks different genes as is done in breeding. Do you comprehend the difference?

 

[SnakeLord]

Firstly, I am as interested as Ophiolite is, to get your answer to his question. I shall restate it for you now:

What is it that leads you to disagree with the work of thousands of researchers, who have studied fossils and fossilisation? I can think of three possibilities, but acknowledge that there may be others: detailed personal study of the phenomena, divine revelation, blind arrogance. I await your reply with interest.

An answer would be appreciated.

Why use wild animals? You obviously don't understand what evolution is. There is NO EVOLUTION in dog breeds. This is simply mixing genes to get extreme results. Evolution requires that the genes change. There is no change going on here, only selective breeding, which is not evolutionary at all.

You are obviously confused.

I am very interested in knocking down silly ideas like Evolution of life from non-life or the Evolution of reptiles into mammels and birds - Fish simply do not become horses.

Based upon what exactly? Everyone will agree with you and say that fish do not become horses after a day or two - which is seemingly what you expect.

If anyone can post some more details from the SCIENCE article, I would be very interested. I can't get to the article on their web site and I certainly am not going to give that organization any of my money.

And that is the very reason you don't know anything about it, and don't learn anything about it.

As much as I detest religion and religious people, I still spent money to get hold of a few bibles, (different translations). This allows me to learn what it is people are supporting, and gives me an angle with which to debate it - or accept it if there is reason to do so. Your comment shows your naivety, and shows that there is no point trying to argue something that you clearly do not understand, and that you clearly cannot be bothered learning about.

 

[David F.]

Really? No radioactive dating at all? Except for the oxygen isotope, deutrium/ hydrogen and beryllium methods used on ice samples, such as the Vostok core which is estimated to be about 160,000 years old, plus or minus 15,000 years. A pretty big error margin, but larger than a few millenia.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/icecores.html

I'm looking at your link and I will admit, it looks very impressive.

However, I see two problems. first, all the dating methods except counting layers are labed with "The major disadvantages of this method are ...", while at the end it explicitly says:

While unable to provide specific dates (within a millenia), the analysis show definate evidence of the the last two ice ages. Using the methods listed above the bottom of the ice-core was laid down 160,000 +- 15,000 years ago. It should be noted that all of the methods listed above were consistent with the above results.​

Really? Despite major disadvantages, the methods were all consistent? I'm not trying to be critical here (I don't necessarily disagree that the Earth is over 160k years old - I simply don't know) but this sounds a little fishy. How can all these methods which all have major problems, all come up with the same date? How can there be definite evidence of the last two ice ages, when no one knows exactly when those ice ages were - and the article even mentions this lack of knowledge? This is just a little too good to be true (and I don't even have a problem with it being true). What I would really like to see is the evidence for Europes "little ice age" and how that age was determined in the ice cores since this is an event which is really not in dispute - I mean the dates are not in dispute.

Second, I found this article, and I just can't think that this has never happened before in the history of the world. The concern here is that one of the major glaciers in Antartica is thinning and will float off of the ocean floor and literally leave the continent. It also says that the ice flows (at its fastest point) at a rate of about 2.5 km per year. That's pretty fast. At that rate (granted that is the fastest rate) ice could flow all the way from the center of Antartica to the outermost point in only 1000 years? Ice flow rates like this do not bode well for the proposition that Ice Cores show 160,000 years of continuous growth. With ice flowing out from the center at measurable rates (which do very from decade to decade), how can there be ice-cores which span a hundred times the known flow rate? - And the glacier in the article flows up hill!

I will keep investigating.

 

[guthrie]

Please don't misunderstand my intentions. I am not here to prove Creation - a supernateral event in the distant past is totally unprovable - which doesn't make it false, just not available for examination. I am not at all interested in such a vain quest.

Thats alright then.

However, if I was to argue Creation, I would have to point out that the Genesis story starts, before the first day, as a water-filled world with something (cloud layer?) which obscured the light. No mention is made of how this came to be or how long it took other than the statement - God Created the Heavens and the Earth (not a very descriptive verse). Could Ice have been forming long before the so called "Six Days of Creation" - yes it could, which makes it an interesting marker.

Well then, the question for the scientifically minded becomes how long has it been forming for?

I am very interested in knocking down silly ideas like Evolution of life from non-life or the Evolution of reptiles into mammels and birds - Fish simply do not become horses.

Of course fish dont become horses. The ancestor of both of them wasnt quite like what we think of as a fish. Presumably a few hundred million years of evolution means nothing to you? Do you think evolution is silly because of your beliefs or because you personally do not like the sound of it?

I'm looking at your Ice Core dating post, and I will respond later. I'm not sure what you mean by non-organic parts of animals - I assume you mean bones but then bones are organic as well and do decay, just not as fast as flesh.

Last I looked, bones were made of calcium phosphate, which doesnt count as organic. Only carbon based molecules count as organic. Look up pictures of bone on the web, it looks good close up and is very impressive in its performance.

 

[David F.]

Well then, the question for the scientifically minded becomes how long has it been forming for?

I don't know - and from a creationists point of view, it really doesn't matter since any number over 6000 is biblically acceptable. However, from a scientific point of view, I would question all the current numbers since they are based upon scientific need rather than actual data.

Of course fish dont become horses. The ancestor of both of them wasnt quite like what we think of as a fish. Presumably a few hundred million years of evolution means nothing to you? Do you think evolution is silly because of your beliefs or because you personally do not like the sound of it?

No, biological evolution is mathematically and scientically impossible. Before we get too far down this road, let me first say that so called microevolution is perfectly acceptable and known to be true. This is the adaptation and speciation of existing living organisms. However, macroevolution - the rise of living organisms from non-living is completely without evidence and is scientifically impossible (am I really having this conversation yet again???)

Many modern biochemists and evolutionary biologists have recognized this fact and are looking for some other method whereby the first cell might have been realized on Earth. The most prevelent theory is seeding from space, although no one has any clue how the first cell might have originated in space any more than it might have originated on Earth.

A one-celled animal is not just a bubble with some chemicals in it. It is a biological machine which runs a predefined, very complex program called DNA. It also has mechanisms for locomotion, gathering food, converting food into energy, storing energy, moving required molecules around within the cell to the locations they are needed, creating new proteins and enzyms. disposing of waste and of course the hardest of all, replicating itself. This is not something which just pops up out of nowhere. It is a vastly complex machine which defys all attempts to define in any Darwinian sense or to show how such a mechanism might have occured by chance. The key phrase here is irreducably complex, meaning many of the mechanisms within the cell must have sprung up fully formed and fully functioning because there is no less complicated system which can be shown to work thus negating the idea of Darwinian evolutionary progression. Where did this animal containing many irreducably complex organic machines come from and how did it originate? Well, the best answer thus far seems to be that the first cell was originally designed and built by an alien species with far superior intellegence of unknown origin (careful, that sounds an awfully lot like God). They even made a movie about it - Mission to Mars (2000).

Of course, even once such a cell does find itself on this planet, it is still a huge unsubstantiated leap from one celled animals to multicelled animals and branching into the various Kindoms, Phylum, Order... No one has yet shown any method whereby such an ordered progression might be accomplished (just hand waving and a vague comment about "survival of the fittest"). My favorite book on the subject, as I have mention before, is Darwin's Black Box by Professor/Microbiologist Michael Behe.

Last I looked, bones were made of calcium phosphate, which doesnt count as organic. Only carbon based molecules count as organic. Look up pictures of bone on the web, it looks good close up and is very impressive in its performance.

OK, I'll accept that definition,

Bone tissue differs from all other connective tissues. Its matrix has not only organic components (same as all the other connective tissues) but also abundant inorganic components that set it apart structurally and functionally from all other tissues.

Roughly, the matrix is about 20% water, 20% protein and 60% mineral salts.

Inorganic Components:
- They are mineral salts, mainly Hydroxyapatite (a cristallized form of tricalcium phosphate), some calcium carbonate, and small amount of magnesium hydroxide, fluoride and sulfate.
- They give the bone its characteristic that makes it unique among all the other tissues: an exceptional HARDNESS which allows it to resist compression.
- Mineral salts are abundants: they make 65% of the bone mass and nearly 2/3 of the matrix.

Organic Components:
- The organic component of the bone matrix is called osteoid.
- It contains proteoglycans, glycoproteins and collagen fibers.
- Without the organic components of the matrix, the bone would be very brittle and it would break if twisted or stretched. These organic molecules, especially the collagen fibers act like reinforcing metal rods in concrete (the concrete here being the mineral salts). They provide bone with great flexibility and tensile strength (resistance to being stretch or torn apart). ref​

but I don't believe fossils are made of Calcium Phosphate. I believe the most common elements are comprised of silicates (sand).

 

[guthrie]

I don't know - and from a creationists point of view, it really doesn't matter since any number over 6000 is biblically acceptable. However, from a scientific point of view, I would question all the current numbers since they are based upon scientific need rather than actual data.

Which need would that be? Bearing in mind that it is all based upon actual data from a wide variety fo sources, from tree rings and carbon 14 to isotope ratios from deep sea sediment, the point is that it roughly hangs together. Sure, theres the obligatory error bars, the + or - 15,000 years out of 160,000 for example, but thats not quite the same as claiming total veracity or else the 6,000 years figure. The actual data can go on, and on, and on. You need to go and read some books about it, I cannot quote tracts of textbooks to you. Or find a place with fossils, or go look at cliff faces with different layers. That is one of the problems with science these days, when you get down to isotope ratios its not the kind of thing you can do yourself, whereas in the good old days you could make your own fossil collection easily, or carry out your own experiments with oils and stuff in your back garden.

No, biological evolution is mathematically and scientically impossible. Before we get too far down this road, let me first say that so called microevolution is perfectly acceptable and known to be true. This is the adaptation and speciation of existing living organisms. However, macroevolution - the rise of living organisms from non-living is completely without evidence and is scientifically impossible (am I really having this conversation yet again???)

It would be simpler to say that the rise of living from non living is lacking evidence, which does not make it scientifically impossible. Its scientifically impossible for the earth to be at the physical centre of the solar system, since we can see and measure and calculate that it is not. However, with regards to the exact origin of life, we cannot say either way for certain, because of the lack of evidence. But we can say that some experiments such as the lightning in jar of gloop creating amino acids one done years ago, suggest ways in which it could work.

Many modern biochemists and evolutionary biologists have recognized this fact and are looking for some other method whereby the first cell might have been realized on Earth.

And many many more are happy with the current hypothesis and are working towards improving its accuracy. It'll all come out in the wash hopefully, though it might take a few more decades.

I'll leave the rest of the comments, it would be easier if you took them to the biology forum, and I am not knowledgeable enough to give them a comprehensive answer.

but I don't believe fossils are made of Calcium Phosphate. I believe the most common elements are comprised of silicates (sand).

Or calcite. It depends whats in the water percolating through the sediment. You might also find chalcedony, opal, cassiterite replacing the calcium carbonate of shells. Unfortunately I dont have a complete guide to fossils, (thats something else I need to get) so cannot say what the incidences of the various minerals that form fossils.

 

[Red Devil]

Why is it that 44% of the USA refuse to believe in The Theory of Evolution?

 

[Cris]

The USA has one of the lowest education standards in the western world. Ignorance->superstition->religion.

 

[Red Devil]

Not sure its lowest "education" but lowest "intelligence" maybe

 

[Andre]

Why does a discussion about a possible homo sapiens ancestor has to evolve into a creation versus evolution debate?

Don't you guys know that there are two worlds here, a created one and an evolved one and never the twain shall meet.

But somehow they got intermingled.

 

[David F.]

Which need would that be? Bearing in mind that it is all based upon actual data from a wide variety fo sources, from tree rings and carbon 14 to isotope ratios from deep sea sediment, the point is that it roughly hangs together. Sure, theres the obligatory error bars, the + or - 15,000 years out of 160,000 for example, but thats not quite the same as claiming total veracity or else the 6,000 years figure. The actual data can go on, and on, and on. You need to go and read some books about it, I cannot quote tracts of textbooks to you. Or find a place with fossils, or go look at cliff faces with different layers. That is one of the problems with science these days, when you get down to isotope ratios its not the kind of thing you can do yourself, whereas in the good old days you could make your own fossil collection easily, or carry out your own experiments with oils and stuff in your back garden.

It would be simpler to say that the rise of living from non living is lacking evidence, which does not make it scientifically impossible. Its scientifically impossible for the earth to be at the physical centre of the solar system, since we can see and measure and calculate that it is not. However, with regards to the exact origin of life, we cannot say either way for certain, because of the lack of evidence. But we can say that some experiments such as the lightning in jar of gloop creating amino acids one done years ago, suggest ways in which it could work.

And many many more are happy with the current hypothesis and are working towards improving its accuracy. It'll all come out in the wash hopefully, though it might take a few more decades.

I'll leave the rest of the comments, it would be easier if you took them to the biology forum, and I am not knowledgeable enough to give them a comprehensive answer.

I have read and I have researched (I have several books sitting right in front of me) and No there are not researchers who are trying to refine the current hypothesis. When it comes to biochemical evolution, there are very few working in the field and there is a resounding silence in the scientific literature concerning the subject. The idea that all things are possible given enough time and enough tries, is simply not so - its called lieing with statistics. Biochemical Evolution is impossible, not improbable but impossible. It doesn't take all that much research and study to understand this (although it is certainly more than I can type into a thread like this).

The truth is that we don't know how life got here and we don't know how old the Earth is. There are NO DATING METHODS which have passed anything like a rigorous scientific evaluation showing that correct results emerge. In fact, Radiocarbon dating has totally failed many times - so many that professional historians reject all C14 test data. Somehow we still use these incredibly long dates, 4-5 billion years, as the accepted age of the Earth, without any scientific data to back them up at all. Why? Because any date less than this would certainly doom the whole science of Biological Evolution - thus the need in science for these dates to be true (actually even this age is ridiculously small when faced with the needs of evolution, but other sciences have to struggle to just maintain this incredible age). The idea that there are scientists out there fixing the problems and validating the data, is simply wrong wishful thinking – kind of like faith in one’s religion. (Lightning in gloop jars does not produce the correct amino acids nor explain how they might survive even if they were produced since amino acids decay quickly in the presence of oxygen).

Your list of facts which "hang together" doesn't really work. How do dating techniques which measure in 10s of thousands of years (radiocarbon) hang together with things which measure in decades and centuries (trees - the oldest of which is no more than 2000 years) and things which measure in 100s of thousands of years (Uranium-Lead - 100s of thousands, potassium-argon - billions of years). The methods do not overlap and cannot check each other. Where they do slightly overlap (as in tree rings and C14) they do not hang together because there are known discrepancies (radiocarbon gives a significantly different age for trees than can be counted on the rings - there is a worldwide effort currently going on to find a correction factor for the flawed C14 data using - you guessed it - tree rings, reference, notice how they try to explain away rising C14 levels by blaming nuclear testing - NOT). The theories simply don't work. You cannot have fossils in layers or strata which is only inches thick but represents millions of years. Fossils absolutely will not form this way (they must be deeply buried with water). The whole thing is a sham, a house of cards that is slowly coming down despite the efforts of the scientific community to prop it up - which is one reason why 44% of the people don't believe.

Anyway, back to the exhumed monkey. Does anyone have any information from the Science article?

 

[Medicine*Woman]

Cris: The USA has one of the lowest education standards in the western world. Ignorance->superstition->religion.
*************
M*W: When I was growing up in the 60s, we had higher expectations placed on us. Where I went to school (Texas), we were all expected to go to college. There were only a few of my graduating class that went into blue collar labor careers (auto mechanics, A/C repair, construction, etc.). My point is, since the massive immigration into the USA from countries from South of the border, and their children being educated right alongside my children's generation, the higher expectations they made of us dropped as to become equivalent to the new diverse populations. (I am not discriminating here). Today's American society has a much broader middle class, and the average intelligence of today's American population ranges from about 6th-8th grade, since the immigrants and their children usually don't speak English. When my children were in high school, I was shocked to find their regular academic textbooks only touched on important issues in the history classes. English class also included those who were unilingual in Spanish, so the median level of education dropped. Have you ever seen the sensational talk shows of Jerry Springer, Sally Jessy Raphael, and even the court shows. These programs reflect the lifestyles of Mr. and Mrs. Mid-America. It blows my mind!

I'm not blaming any group of people who came here to have a better life. Surely, they do. It is the problem of the state education bureaus. We expect less from our children than the system expected of us. I've known college graduates (even from prestigeous universities) who couldn't read or write good English. How they even get into college is a mystery to me -- but the education system has become lenient to include children with no other formal education, and it has lowered the standards. Schools are for-profit now -- just like everything else. In Texas the State Higher Education Commission pays each school x#$ (it varies between districts) for each child who attends school each day. When the kid is sick, the schools don't get paid. So, of course, every school in Texas (I don't know about the other states) encourages (as they should) all children regardless of educational background to enroll, and I agree with this. But, unfortunately, with everyone's skills and aptitude averaged, it has lowered our high standards of education. It's almost impossible these days to prohibit a child from getting into college. College is BIG business these days.

My point, Cris, is that you are right. America's educational standards have gone down since I was in the system. However, the drop-out rate has also declined in Texas. I wouldn't say that our lower educational standards are caused by ignorance, per se, but by the changing face of our society.

 

[Medicine*Woman]

Andre: Why does a discussion about a possible homo sapiens ancestor has to evolve into a creation versus evolution debate?

Don't you guys know that there are two worlds here, a created one and an evolved one and never the twain shall meet.

But somehow they got intermingled.
*************
M*W: Interesting post! Please explain what you mean by 'two worlds' and 'one created - one evolved.'

 

[David F.]

MW, I also was educated in Texas in the '60s. I have a BS & MBA and am working on a PhD (Physics). I don't think I would qualify as uneducated. I have enough science training to know not to believe Evolution. May I qualify that rejecting the scientifc validity of Evolution does not mean accepting Creation.

Actually, in my opinion, it is the lack of real science education which allows pseudo-intelectuals to foist ridiculous theories like this on a scientificly-illiterit population.