Here's another evolution-related story with scientists saying that just about anything is possible, once you take evolution as a given.
The remnants of a remarkably petite skull belonging to one of the first human ancestors to walk on two legs have revealed the great physical diversity among these prehistoric populations.But whether the species Homo erectus, meaning "upright man", should be reclassified into several distinct species remains controversial.
Richard Potts, from the National Museum of Natural History at the Smithsonian Institute in Washington, DC, and colleagues discovered numerous pieces of a single skull in the Olorgesailie valley, in southern Kenya, between June and August 2003.
Numerous pieces found in a valley over the course of several months... that means they probably weren't all close together. Why do I not have a lot of confidence they're even from the same skull?
The bones found suggest the skull is that of a young adult Homo erectus who inhabited the lush mountainside some 930,000 years ago. The prominent brow and temporal bone resemble other Homo erectus specimens found elsewhere in Africa, and in Europe, Indonesia and China.But the skull itself is around 30% smaller, which is likely to have corresponded to a similar difference in body size. The specimen helps fill a gap in the fossil record as very few Homo erectus specimens of this age have been found in Africa so far.
So... it's not really very similar?
Some experts even go so far as to suggest that a complete rethink of the human genealogical tree may be in order. "Recognising that Homo erectus may be more a historical accident than a biological reality might lead to a better understanding of those fossils whose morphology clearly exceeds the bounds of individual variation," says Jeffrey Schwartz of Pittsburgh University.But Fred Spoor, at University College London, UK, disputes this interpretation, saying there is probably similar variation among modern human populations and ape species. "It's completely justified to call it Homo erectus," he told New Scientist. "This just gives some insight into the great variation of later specimens."
In other words, nothing is proven. New finds just lead to new speculation.
Spoor notes that the paucity of the fossil record means that many conjectures about Homo erectus remain unproven.
Indeed.
He hypothesises that a Homo erectus of this size may in fact have been muscular enough to make the stone tools found in the Olorgesailie valley. "They may have been small individuals, but incredibly powerful," he says.
Maybe! But there's no way to know. There's no experimental process. There's no repeatability. Thus, you can believe what you will about evolution, but it's not science. Studying fossils is science, gathering data is science, but speculating on the distant past is not science.
Which doesn't mean evolution is a useless idea. I've used evolutionary algorithms in my study of artificial intelligence, and they're quite interesting.
More on why evolution isn't scientific.
I've always been struck by the whole idea of a transition and how anti-"survival-of-the-fittest" it would be. Example: if a critter is aquatic and then starts to change to become a land creature, it seems like the interim would be very akward and make the species more likely to become prey. Thus eliminating that entire change process.
The whole improvement thing only works if every stage of the improvement is an improvement. If things have to get worse in order to get better, it becomes impossible evolutionally. At least that is how I see it.
Unfortunately, I can't think of any projects I have undertaken where it didn't have to get worse before it got better.
How do they know this wasn't a disfigured or disformed child? If the skull was all that was found, isn't that possible? I've also wondered if evolution is true, real, whatever, why don't we see at least the tiniest signs of it now? The greenhouse effect has gradually bumped the temperature up over the last 100 years. Why wouldn't we see some slight sign that measured over a hundred (or more) years proves evolution. Another thought along that vein is if evolution is real, why aren't there an infinite number of species right now, all at different points in evolving?
I don't see any good reason to attack evolution. It is simply a theory, and although it has its holes, surely you can see how natural selection works and have seen it in action. You have seen the human species evolve both physically and culturally in your life.
It is a slight leap of faith, of course, to say evolution is responsible for everything. But an objective person that truly does not know will not fill in the gaps with beliefs and claim they have the answer.
I finally just recently got my dad to realize that there is a difference in his knowing something and his believing something to be true. For example, his belief in God. Just as some people believe in evolution but do not know what it is responsible for.
I sure hope you can concede that evolution does happen --- the extent to which it happens is what you should be disagreeing about.
Cheers
JG: I don't think you understand what evolution is. It has nothing do with cultural change among humans, and it's nothing that's observable over a person's lifetime.
Further, the real source of disagreement is over the connection between natural selection and evolution. Natural selection is observable, but there's no evidence that natural selection leads to evolution, there's only conjecture.
There's plenty of evidence that natural selection leads to evolution --- they are one in the same. When I say you have observed evolution in action, I am confident you have seen or at least heard about someone doing something very stupid and eliminating themselves from the gene pool. I don't think that is conjecture; they can no longer have kids and pass their genes because they are dead.
JG: Actually, they aren't one and the same. Natural selection is just one proposed engine of evolution, there are several others. For example, read up on "genetic drift". Someone dying from doing something stupid is indeed a form of natural selection, but there's no way to observe whether or not it leads to evolution.
There just seems to be so much evidence that points to some form of evolution taking place. For example, why are there black and white people? Physically it has to do with the amount of melanin that the body produces.
And this is related to environment. A colder environment means less melanin produced, a warmer one means more.
It is very interesting actually that they found that black US soldiers in WW2 had about 5 times greater chances of getting frostbite and dying from cold related ailments than white soldiers. And black people rarely get skin cancer. There are physical advantages to skin color that are related to environment.
Now a clear example of regional evolution would be how black soldiers had a higher tendency to get frostbite and die from the cold. In snowy environments, a higher percentage of blacks would die and a higher percentage of whites would survive. After a very long period of time, under the right conditions, humans would evolve in a cold environment to be whiter. And they would evolve in a hotter sunnier environment to be darker. You might not buy it, and I have plenty of doubts myself about evolution and what exactly it is responsible for, but it certainly does exist.
I think in the human species, however, physical evolution's role is being decreased and cultural evolution is becoming the replacement.
JG: Skin color variation among humans has absolutely nothing to do with evolution. Variation within a species is commonly called "micro-evolution", although that term has fallen out of favor recently. Again, there's no proven (or provable) connection between variation within a species and actual speciation (the creation of new species).
It kind of just seems like you have reached the opinion and belief that evolution does not exist and has had no place in shaping history, and for that reason, you are doing the same thing you accuse some advocates of evolution of doing: using the evidence to fit the theory. Your theory is that evolution is a crock and has done nothing at all throughout history.
But it does seem to me like a much smaller leap of faith when you attribute what you said was called 'micro-evolution' and extrapolate that to millions of years. Variations within species would have the oppurtunity to become more pronounced and noticeable.
This is science, however. Because once you start with the understanding that natural selection is essentially a law of nature, (because it is), you start wondering what it is responsible for, and what it might do in certain situations. Variations within skin color is just one example of natural selection at work in humans.
But changing gears, do your religious beliefs permit you to believe whatever you find to be most objectively true in terms of how the world and life was created? I just want to suggest that your religion has its own agenda of self-perpetuation and the authenticity of its message. If the Bible's message is tainted, Christianity's credibility goes down. So there is an agenda of discrediting things that contradict what is in the Bible. Like the creation story, for example.
Now, scientists hopefully are objective in their research and studies, and do not have agendas in searching for truth. I know this is not always the case, but at the very least, scientists do not have an ancient dogmatic book that they need to authenticate. They do not have an agenda.
JG: I never said that I don't believe in evolution. I think you're putting words in my mouth and purposefully misunderstanding my position.
If you think that scientists don't have an agenda, then you're naive and haven't had much exposure to scientific research. Academics care about two things: enhancing their reputation among their peers, and securing grant money.
You seem to have given this issue a decent amount of thought, but you don't understand the foundational concepts. You're arguing based on what you want evolution, natural selection, and science to be like, rather than what they actually are.
I'm not saying this to be mean, but the vocabulary you use and the examples you give reveal that you don't have a firm understanding of what you're talking about. Natural selection, evolution, and science itself aren't ambiguous, amorphous ideas, they are very well defined, and you're using the terms in ways that don't fit their actual definitions. This makes it hard to discuss the issue with you, because saying "natural selection is a law of nature" makes no sense, and there's no substance there for me to disagree with, and yet it leaves you with the impression that you actually made a relevant point.
Most wrong of all, however, is your apparent picture of scientists. A few years working at a research institution will disabuse you of your mistaken notions of "searching for truth" and the like. Or even go read PhD comics.
Well I have to admit, I have never studied evolution or natural selection in detail, other than some casual reading on my part. So it is pretty likely I am confusing in how I am using certain words too generally or completely wrong. It could definitely be happening.
But when I said natural selection is a law of nature, I thought that should be pretty self-explanatory. I mean, nature is ruled by natural selection. Within species, individuals compete for resources and for sex. It's natural selection. The strong survive. And then on a more macro level, different species are competing for resources, and once again, the strong survive and the weak do not. Please tell me if something is wrong with this, that's all I meant by natural selection being a law of nature. I just think it is very observable, not only in humans but in other organisms, and I do take natural selection for granted, in that it is the governing force of life. I guess a law of nature would be more like the sum of the forces = mass*acceleration relationship that exists in physics. But the fact that the strong individual organisms with comparative advantages have sex and pass their genes on, that is also easily observable in nature just like F=ma, so that's why I was calling it a law of nature.
I think that scientists in an acedemic setting do often have an agenda, not all scientists do. This is different from a (devout?)religious devotee because by definition a Christian for example has to take everything in the Bible as sacred. Including the creation story. There are pure scientists out there that do not have an agenda of furthering their reputation or sensationalizing their findings to get more money in grants, at least I sure hope so. I think that is why science is moving forward, at least. Because people like that do exist. It just seems so 'out there' that every single theory and interest in evolution that scientists have shown is only there because those people hate religion. I think there are a few out there that honestly (for some unknown reason) want to spite Christians and there creation story, but really, I think most of those interested in speculating and theorizing on evolution honestly are trying to figure out how things might have happened.
JG: As for Christians, much in the Bible is clearly allegorical. For instance, Jesus taught using parables. Why couldn't the creation story be allegorical also, without much disruption? As with evolution, there's no way to prove it either way. In any event, I don't think it's a particularly important issue. If you've seen "Blade Runner" you can imagine that the entire universe was created five seconds ago, memories intact, and there would be no way to know for sure. Where we come from is interesting, from a self-focused perspective, but not as interesting as where we're going.
Also, the the bias of most scientists against Christianity isn't due to "hating" religion. It's because people (including Christians) invest a lot in their beliefs. Some people honestly think they're right, some people are unsure and afraid to question, and so forth.
My main point in all this is to explain why the theory of evolution isn't scientific, even though it's believed by many people who call themselves scientists. It's a belief system, based as much on faith as any other. For instance, see my earlier post on the topic, and some related material by Steven Den Beste.
Well all that I am saying is that sure, I grant that evolution is not perfectly scientific, it is much more so than believing in the creation story. And there is a predisposition and strong correlation between 'faith' in evolution, and the type of people that usually have this 'faith.' These people are intellectuals, scientists, and free-thinkers. I consider you to be an exception, and a very noteworthy one at that, because you are an intellectual but you take a unique place on this issue considering that.
I have many problems with issues of authenticity of the Bible. What you described makes it difficult to decide when to take something literally out of the Bible, and when to take it as a parable, especially in parts when there is direct narration of events. This may seem silly but Jesus dying on the cross was a story and what makes you think that actually happened if you are going to suggest that the creation miracle, story of moses, or countless others did not?
JG: Who said understanding the Bible was easy?
It doesn't seem that hard to me to tell which parts are literal accounts of things the author saw happen, and which are recorded oral traditions.
Your own predispositions are showing as well, by categorizing intellectuals and scientists as "free-thinkers", which the vast majority are certainly not.
I would venture to say that scientists and intellectuals and free-thinkers all have more of a tendency to invest faith in more of an evolution belief system than a creation belief system. I guess you have done neither.
But where you find it easy to differentiate between literal accounts and oral traditions, many do not. The creation story is believed by most Christians as a literal account of what happened. Who provided that literal account I have no idea, maybe some person named Genesis. But most Christians do accept the creation story as fact, or at least, most that I have talked to about it.
JG: I think you're rather prejudiced. I can't really dispute your anecdotal evidence, and I've already told you what I think.
I don't really have any evidence, I've just been throwing ideas out there. I would hope though that what you think you would be willing to change. I know I am willing to change what I think if something that makes more sense arises.
JG: Peripherally, what's so noble about being willing to change what you believe? Isn't the point of belief that it involves faith? Is it noble to have a weak faith that is easily changed? Or should it be difficult to change, but not impossible?
I'm not particularly willing to change. I've examined a lot of evidence, and it's unlikely at this point that I'll learn something new that will radically change my beliefs. I know all the arguments, I know all the different positions, and I've evaluated them all and made my decision. Does that make me not a "free-thinker", or is it possible that I've freely thought out my current position and am just confident that I'm right?
I guess this is just philosophy, but in terms of confidence in your position --- I like that you have confidence in your position and hold it in high regard relative to the evolution argument.
But it is always noble to accept the fact that you could be wrong. Especially when you cannot have possibly studied this subject as much as some others (not me, mind ya). There is always more to know, though.
JG: There's always more to know, but there's a point of diminishing returns. If I learn the most important things first -- based on my own and others' evaluations -- then I don't have to know all the rest of the little things to be confident in my decision. New, big things don't come along very often, considering that Christianity is a revealed religion.
Petrs Said :
"How do they know this wasn't a disfigured or disformed child? If the skull was all that was found, isn't that possible? I've also wondered if evolution is true, real, whatever, why don't we see at least the tiniest signs of it now?
hmm.. i have encountered this type of reasoning before,, it was when i was discussing the creation/ evolution matter with a JEHOVAS WITNESS.
Its was a very interesting little chat, i learned that the world is 6000 years old, the dinosaurs
never existed, its all a big hoax she said,,
anyways,, i asked her if she had heard about an swedish little invention called the KOL 14 method?
she said yes,, and then informed me that that was a hoax also. i also learned what petra said,, all pre humans has never existed,, it is either hoaxes,, or disformed individuals. i learned alot that day,, =)
Wow I'm so sorry I only saw this now (almost a year after all these comments). Man you folks are among the dumbest people I have ever had the displeasure of inhabiting the planet with. I'm only glad that by the time you get to graduate school people like you are weeded out and your bizarre mythologies are 'selected against' in favor of real life science.
You guys are an insult to the human brain.
asdf: Sorry to disappoint you, but I'm actually in grad school too! Crazy, I know. You certainly are opinionated for someone cloaked in anonymity, but despite your strong opinion you didn't really bother to actually explain how all these unproven conjectures and poor predictions add up to "real life science". Maybe it's just so obvious that you don't even need to say, or maybe you're just so used to everyone swallowing your own orthodoxy that you never bother to question it.
Wow, I just returned to this site to read this thread, and that was a very interesting read about 6 years after we originally had the discussion...
Google is wonderful.