the old evoutionary chart keeps getting proven wrong-this according to bill kimbel at the university of arizona-director of the institute of human origins. is this just more proof that we did no evolve from apes or fish as some would have us believe. the GOD option is looking more and more like the truth.
2007-08-08 09:55:04 · 9 answers · asked by BRYAN H 5 in Science & Mathematics ➔ Biology
you know, i asked this question to further the debate, not to be called names or berated. this is getting more and more like KOS. does anyone of these people know whether or not i believe in GOD? no! the science that so may base their opinion on is constantly being revised which means so does their opinion. the fact that two seperate bones from several million years apart were found in the same era is very significant. but instead of debating the issue i am verbally attacked. your proof of the evolution of mankind is about as firm as quicksand based on what your replies were. is there no one who has an open enough mind to discuss the facts versus declaring victory in truth only yo have your truth change next year.
2007-08-09 03:05:44 · update #1
Tracked down you reference. You are so far off as to be laughable! Bill Kimble said that the linear chart that you usually see in news papers, which depicts the evolution of man straight from proto-ape to man in a business suit is wrong. Evolution of human kind is more bush like. Surprise, surprise!!!
This is what we have been saying in biology forever! In fact, it is one of secertsauce's pet peeves. ( not to mention, one of mine )
As usual, one of you creationists have twisted the truth to support you nefarious purpose. No surprise there, either.
I have seen that article misused three times today. In the anthropology section and religion and spirituality.
secretsause. You can find the site at anthropology. Question by Xena_fire. At top of list right now. Article from YA news, of all places. Question reads; " So evolution theory wasn't so correct after all. " As I said, this has been twisted around several places today.
Quit whining Bryan, as you are the one positing unsupported assertion. I do not care about your religious beliefs; just your convoluted appreciation of evolutionary theory. You are incoherent as the social science twits who started this " tempest in a teapot. " We do not relegate real science to anthropologists, anyway.
2007-08-08 11:11:42 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 2⤋
Please provide some source? Just dropping a name, doesn't explain what you are talking about.
I can find no mention anywhere at all that Bill Kimbel says anything like "the old evolutionary chart keeps getting proven wrong."
So it appears that you are either lying ... or you have been lied to. Which is it?
The fact that the details of the evolutionary chart keeps getting updated does not mean that it is "wrong" ... just that scientists are doing their job. They are refining their understanding and keeping the understanding of evolutionary science updated with every new discovery. The changes are no more than refinements (e.g. debating the position of a single species ... Australopithecus afarensis ... in the evolutionary chart). It's not like they're moving the human evolutionary branch from the primates over to the crocodilians or anything.
{edit - after jonmcn's post}
Holy crap! Is that what this is about?! This is indeed one of my pet peeves! (It was also one of Stephen Jay Gould's.)
2007-08-08 09:59:24 · answer #2 · answered by secretsauce 7 · 5⤊ 3⤋
Another Excellent question BRYAN H. VERY brave of you to run the gauntlet with these freaky evolutionists. Their nasty habit of hurling abuse and sarcasm (eg ; "Silly Troll", "It appears that you are lying" and the questioning of your intelligence), is becoming more and more 'cult-like' as the theory of evolution gets weaker and weaker.
Perhaps the so "intelligent" 'Sassy's Mom', can actually produce, or show, 'precisely' where the 'unequivocal' evidence is for this "Common Ancestor" she and other evolutionists keep on mentioning as the BEST evidence they have to support the fossil evidence of evolution. Or what kind of beast it is supposed to have been, or even tell us it's proper name?
Taking all into consideration, including the many 'mistakes' that surround us in our life on this planet, which must preclude 'creation' by a 'PERFECT' entity, as well as the lack of evolutionary evidence, I have come to the conclusion that the only feasible answer to our presence on this planet can only be explained by "intelligent intervention", but by very advanced beings from an extremely old and incomprehensibly advanced planet, elsewhere in the universe, as opposed to a very unprofessional, slip-shod 'perfect' entity.
Keep up the good work BRYAN. YOU are on the right track!
PS. Now just watch all the 'thumbs down' I'll get from the misguided evo's.
EDIT - To SASSY'S MOM (and any other evolutionist)
Can you answer the question about this "Common Ancestor" you mentioned? Can you actually quote the exact wording used to substantiate the validity of it, and exactly where we can find it, please?
2007-08-08 11:44:00 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 3⤋
There is no evolutionary chart.
Science works like this. ideas replace other ideas. Something about us places a need to know within us. This makes one answer very attractive. The reality is not so attractive.
Evolutionary process is well documented. God by definition cannot be documented, it is a process of belief. There does not have to be a conflict.
2007-08-09 05:10:12 · answer #4 · answered by eastacademic 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
no. think of a jigsaw puzzle. scientists have worked out the basic shape but are still trying to figure out where all the pieces fit. sorry but there is almost no chance that that bit of sky matches with that bit over there, it definitely looks like a cactus.
if anything the 'tree of life' is only coming into clearer focus as genome studies are incorporated into the body of evidence supporting it. even the relationships between archaea, bacteria and eukaryotes are becoming clearer.
2007-08-08 10:34:41 · answer #5 · answered by vorenhutz 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Silly troll, I would suggest learning about what evolution is before you make yourself look silly. Incidentally the periodic table has also been revised numerous times over the last century, does that make chemistry an invalid theory as well. Evolution is simply made stronger by more discoveries, not weaker, silly troll.
2007-08-08 10:03:56 · answer #6 · answered by mistofolese 3 · 4⤊ 3⤋
No one says we evolved from apes or fish. It's called a COMMON ANCESTOR.
I suggest taking a class or seminar on Evolution, so that you can intelligently discuss the topic.
2007-08-08 10:12:39 · answer #7 · answered by Sassy's Mom 2 · 2⤊ 3⤋
Ever since Darwin first proposed his model of biological evolution, it has been altered and refined as new data became available. The fact that Darwins theory has not stood intact, is NOT proof that God said POOF! All exists!
2007-08-08 10:05:24 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 4⤋
We must not be unkind to evolutionists, no matter how unlikely their theories are.
I personally prefer to stick to my human ancestors, rather than apes, but each to his own taste.
2007-08-09 04:40:48 · answer #9 · answered by Canute 6 · 1⤊ 2⤋