Whats your belief on Evolution and the Java Man?

Question

Trinil 2, "Java Man", "Pithecanthropus I", Homo erectus (was Pithecanthropus erectus)
Discovered by Eugene Dubois in 1891 near Trinil in Java. Its age is uncertain, but thought to be about 700,000 years. This find consisted of a flat, very thick skullcap, a few teeth, and a thigh bone found about 12 meters away (Theunissen, 1989). The brain size is about 940 cc. Trinkaus and Shipman (1992) state that most scientists now believe the femur is that of a modern human, but few of the other references mention this.

I have started studying more on Evolution , like all things in life controversary and speculation will arise.

nice link ,looks like they will always be speculation and debate on the human body how humans evolved

Answer 1

The Java Man fossils are so fragmentary that it is difficult to conclude much from them, other than that it was a creature with a brain somewhat smaller than modern man's but much larger than any ape's.

The skull cap is very similar to other Homo Erectus skulls, though, so it is probably of the same or similar species.

The best Homo Erectus fossil is probably the Turkana Boy, a nearly complete skeleton of what is clearly not a modern human. It is an excellent example of a "missing link" fossil.

Answer 2

I find a lot of sense in Darwin's Survival of the Fittest, but his book "The Descent of Man" - although thought provoking defies the second law of thermodynamics: all matter goes from a state of order to entropy (disorder), matter deteriorates it doesn't improve this is true of humans - as they grow old their bodies break down. To say that man evolved from lesser species is akin to saying if you put a Honda in a field and left it there it would someday evolve into a BMW and we know for a fact that is not true. Darwin was a brilliant man and his observations of the similarities between apes and man was astute since we now know much of the genetic makeup of chimpanzees and humans (~98%) is the same. That does not prove that chimps will some day evolve into humans - they may develop more in their own species, however. As far as man evolving from other homo erectus beings, we now know that Neanderthals died off due to - you guessed it - survival of the fittest which was homo sapiens. A species does develop and adapt becoming better able to survive but it doesn't change into a different species.

The mutation of a species for survival's sake is not the same as changing into a totally different life form.

There is great debate among anthropologists on this subject but the laws of thermodynamics are absolute.

Answer 3

Helen, you aren't using the second law of thermodynamics properly. If you look at a plant. It grow from a simple seed to a complex plant capable of synthesizing chemicals that takes years to synthesize in a laboratory. But does that go against the second law, I think not.

Answer 4

The argument against evolution using the 2nd law of thermodynamics is not valid because the Earth is not an isolated system.

Answer 5

Evolutionary biologists passionately debate diverse topics: how speciation happens, the rates of evolutionary change, the ancestral relationships of birds and dinosaurs, whether Neandertals were a species apart from modern humans, and much more. These disputes are like those found in all other branches of science. Acceptance of evolution as a factual occurrence and a guiding principle is nonetheless universal in biology. Unfortunately, dishonest creationists have shown a willingness to take scientists’ comments out of context to exaggerate and distort the disagreements. Anyone acquainted with the works of paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould of Harvard University knows that in addition to co-authoring the punctuated-equilibrium model, Gould was one of the most eloquent defenders and articulators of evolution. (Punctuated equilibrium explains patterns in the fossil record by suggesting that most evolutionary changes occur within geologically brief intervals which may nonetheless amount to hundreds of generations.) Yet creationists delight in dissecting out phrases from Gould’s voluminous prose to make him sound as though he had doubted evolution, and they present punctuated equilibrium as though it allows new species to materialize overnight or birds to be born from reptile eggs. When confronted with a quotation from a scientific authority that seems to question evolution, insist on seeing the statement in context. Almost invariably, the attack on evolution will prove illusory.

Some Creationists say that evolutionists cannot point to any transitional fossils—creatures that are half reptile and half bird, for instance. Actually, paleontologists know of many detailed examples of fossils intermediate in form between various taxonomic groups. One of the most famous fossils of all time is Archaeopteryx, which combines feathers and skeletal structures peculiar to birds with features of dinosaurs. A flock’s worth of other feathered fossil species, some more avian and some less, has also been found. A sequence of fossils spans the evolution of modern horses from the tiny Eohippus. Whales had four-legged ancestors that walked on land, and creatures known as Ambulocetus and Rodhocetus helped to make that transition [see “The Mammals That Conquered the Seas,” by Kate Wong; Scientific American, May]. Fossil seashells trace the evolution of various mollusks through millions of years. Perhaps 20 or more hominids (not all of them our ancestors) fill the gap between Lucy the australopithecine and modern humans. Creationists, though, dismiss these fossil studies. They argue that Archaeopteryx is not a missing link between reptiles and birds—it is just an extinct bird with reptilian features. They want evolutionists to produce a weird, chimeric monster that cannot be classified as belonging to any known group. Even if a creationist does accept a fossil as transitional between two species, he or she may then insist on seeing other fossils intermediate between it and the first two. These frustrating requests can proceed ad infinitum and place an unreasonable burden on the always incomplete fossil record. Nevertheless, evolutionists can cite further supportive evidence from molecular biology. All organisms share most of the same genes, but as evolution predicts, the structures of these genes and their products diverge among species, in keeping with their evolutionary relationships. Geneticists speak of the “molecular clock” that records the passage of time. These molecular data also show how various organisms are transitional within evolution.

Answer 6

Goddam dude, you'll figure it out soon enough. SOOOOOON enough. HeHehHe...

You won't get it right away. Give another year or two. Remember these words. ;)

Answer 7

Dead monkeys.