Early Man

[mtnman]

Although I didn't major or minor in anthropology or archaeology in school, I loved it and took a TON of classes as electives.  My brother is an archaeologist, currently working in Washington state (Seattle area), having made his way through Wisconsin, Nebraska, Colorado, and eastern Washington along the way.

One thing that amazed me in college was that most of what I'd learned about the evolution of man in high school just a few years earlier was "old and outdated" information.  Through the years, as I've kept tabs here and there it's amazing to learn that what I'd learned in college is also now "old and outdated" information.  It's exciting to see how quickly science can progress.

Darwin's theory has even evolved a bit; "survival of the reproductively fittest" is a subtle but important distinction.  It doesn't matter how ideal the specimen is, if it doesn't breed and produce offspring that also live long enough to breed and produce offspring.

When it comes to finding fossils, I found this to be an intriguing and exciting presentation-  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IHpEmD-95CQ

It's amazing to me too how good people can get at making finds.  I remember (on an antelope hunt) rolling down a dirt road at @45mph with my brother, in a part of Wyoming where neither of us had ever set foot.  In mid-conversation, my brother quickly craned his head around to look at something as we drove past.  When I asked (thinking he'd spotted an antelope) he responded along the lines of "the road blasts right through an archaeological site right there".  Sure enough, a few days later we were in the same area and pulled over to find several stone points and evidence of knapping in the area.  The crew that built the road likely never knew...

On another hunt, we filled our tags early and my brother asked if I felt like looking for a site or two in the area (again, somewhere neither of us had ever been).  I said sure, and asked what he had in mind, thinking we'd be examining some maps or something before going on what would likely amount to a wild goose chase.  He responded "just take a look over the valley, along where you could see the river used to be several hundred years prior.  Imagine a spot where you'd want to set up a camp, based on the terrain, and we''l go see if there's an old site there."  Yup, we drove as close as we could get, then hopped out and walked the rest of the way in to find old "tipi rings" several broken stone points, and various debitage.  The stone points and debitage were interesting too, because although we were in Colorado the stone was from the NW coast.

[Karnak]

lol, yes...fossils are still used to make claims of direct modern human ancestry and you can't get dna or rna from a fully fossilized specimen.

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/342/6156/326


trying to make claims of absolution when it comes to the evolutionary record of modern humans is rather dumb. the story behind the denisovans and their relationship to modern humans is rife with theory and conjecture. "could have", "may have", "alternatively", etc... more so than the theories of neanderthals 40 years ago. and remember all of the conjecture surrounding cro-magnon man which is now classified as early modern human.

It is interesting that you seem to think the fluidity of scientific theories is a weakness or that it is indicative of vacillation when it is actually science's strength that it discards what has been disproven without sentimentality.

[Motherland]

I think that depends...

If the belief is that a "Supreme Being" has created life, and in particular that the SB has created man "in his own image", then a belief in science (i.e. evolution) is problematic.  

The idea that a created man would be able to evolve into something better / smarter / more capable / more suited to "whatever" would mean that the created man has "improved".

That improvement would seem to elevate the "created in his own image, but evolved, man" to a position somehow better than "in his own image", and therefore better than the "Supreme Being"?

I don't think that's really an important inconsistency. Genetic material changes from generation to generation and slowly drifts just due to imperfections/quirks in the mechanics of DNA and DNA replication, that's something inherent, observed and undeniable whether or not you choose to logically apply that observation to large scale changes over billions of years.
If God had created man in his image 6,000 years ago we are just as different from Adam and Eve as we are from the non-Christian version of humanity that existed 6,000 years ago. It's not possible that we are exactly the same, because if there was a moment of creation, that creation included the (certainly highly impressive, but none the less) fairly flawed methods of reproduction and replication that directly observable.
If you choose to believe that populations remain static over many generations then you have simply closed your eyes to the world.
I think it's always important to keep in mind that nothing gets 'better' in any objective way, just different, in ways that are generally more suited toward the environment. Of course science never considers anything better than anything else, just different, and that applies just as much to evolutionary biology as sociology or linguistics.

There are surely features of religions which make them incompatible with the scientific view of history, but I don't think that evolution is one of them (hopefully it's not because drifts in the genotypes of populations happen observably and that's just not disputable).
The problem with the Adam and Eve story of Genesis for example is not necessarily problematic from a standpoint of the mechanisms of evolution, but just from the standpoint that the Earth is far older than 6,000 years. If you suppose that Eden physically existed, but 4.5 billion years ago, we should really expect that modern humans are far different from Adam and Eve, but again I don't think that necessarily is contradictory with Christianity, just the image we were created in had to change along with the world in which we existed, as humans don't live in the heavens with God.
Humans were created in God's image but were not exact replicas of God. It follows that we're imperfect. If you want to suppose that humans were created perfectly then that's kind of silly as we, like other organisms, are pretty overcomplicated, Rube-Goldberg-like, inefficient machines.

I don't necessarily believe that there is no God but I certainly don't believe that humans and the universe were created 6,000 years ago. None the less, evolution and even abiogenesis isn't really incompatible with the idea of an original creator of the universe.

[mtnman]

I don't think that's really an important inconsistency. Genetic material changes from generation to generation and slowly drifts just due to imperfections/quirks in the mechanics of DNA and DNA replication, that's something inherent, observed and undeniable whether or not you choose to logically apply that observation to large scale changes over billions of years.
If God had created man in his image 6,000 years ago we are just as different from Adam and Eve as we are from the non-Christian version of humanity that existed 6,000 years ago. It's not possible that we are exactly the same, because if there was a moment of creation, that creation included the (certainly highly impressive, but none the less) fairly flawed methods of reproduction and replication that directly observable.
If you choose to believe that populations remain static over many generations then you have simply closed your eyes to the world.
I think it's always important to keep in mind that nothing gets 'better' in any objective way, just different, in ways that are generally more suited toward the environment. Of course science never considers anything better than anything else, just different, and that applies just as much to evolutionary biology as sociology or linguistics.

There are surely features of religions which make them incompatible with the scientific view of history, but I don't think that evolution is one of them (hopefully it's not because drifts in the genotypes of populations happen observably and that's just not disputable).
The problem with the Adam and Eve story of Genesis for example is not necessarily problematic from a standpoint of the mechanisms of evolution, but just from the standpoint that the Earth is far older than 6,000 years. If you suppose that Eden physically existed, but 4.5 billion years ago, we should really expect that modern humans are far different from Adam and Eve, but again I don't think that necessarily is contradictory with Christianity, just the image we were created in had to change along with the world in which we existed, as humans don't live in the heavens with God.
Humans were created in God's image but were not exact replicas of God. It follows that we're imperfect. If you want to suppose that humans were created perfectly then that's kind of silly as we, like other organisms, are pretty overcomplicated, Rube-Goldberg-like, inefficient machines.

I don't necessarily believe that there is no God but I certainly don't believe that humans and the universe were created 6,000 years ago. None the less, evolution and even abiogenesis isn't really incompatible with the idea of an original creator of the universe.

Again, it depends...

I chose to use "Supreme Being" rather than "creator" for just that reason.

If we go with "creator", we could argue that the creator was less-than-perfect (i.e. flawed in some fashion), and therefore could be expected to create a less-than-perfect man.  A man that might actually NEED to change to match his changing environment.

However, if we use the "Supreme Being" instead, and argued that he/it was flawless, all-knowing, all-powerful, all-whatever, then his creation must therefore also be perfect (or at least created exactly as he/it desired) and therefore immune to the need to change.

Mind you, I don't believe in a "creator of the universe" (but could potentially be swayed in the presence of convincing evidence?).  I'd sooner believe that we're not alone, and that we may very well be the result of some form of scientific "alien tinkering".  Maybe just a big science project?  Heck, who knows.  I "believed" as a child, but then went through the process of catechism, confirmation, etc, and as I payed more and more attention to what I was being taught it became less and less possible for me to believe in what I was being taught.

Sitting through my early man, anthropology and archaeology courses, I'll also have to admit that I don't think we quite have that "dialed in" either, but I find it to be closer to the truth.

I consider humans to be simply "fortunate, smart animals", but different enough from the rest of the animal kingdom to raise suspicion that "something might not be just as it appears".

The interaction of animals with people (in a predator/prey relationship) raises some questions in my mind too, that aren't explained to my satisfaction through creation, or evolution.

[Brooke]

My brother is an archaeologist, currently working in Washington state (Seattle area),

If you are ever visiting him, send me a PM, and I'll take the two of you out for a beer.

[Arlo]

If you are ever visiting him, send me a PM, and I'll take the two of you out for a beer.

Nothing like partying archeologists.  



(Actually, I'd love to be a part of that beer meet-up.)

[mtnman]

If you are ever visiting him, send me a PM, and I'll take the two of you out for a beer.

Sounds great!

[GScholz]

For a troll-thread this thread actually turned out pretty good! Wpeters must be the worst troll in the history of the internet!

[NatCigg]

interesting thing to think about.  If time since the big bang is one yard.  Life has been on earth around for a foot of that time. therefore relative to time, life has been around a good portion it. humans, not so much.  one could think the seed for life was present early in the creation, or life is a natural occurrence in nature, or who the hell cares my rent is due next week.

[Saxman]

Interestingly, there's a lot of evidence being gathered that Mars developed a habitable environment long before earth did (earth spent a significant amount of time as a molten ball of sludge thanks to the Giant Impact that created the Moon), and there's currently speculation that life originated there and hitched a ride to earth on meteorites ejected from Mars after asteroid impacts. That's a bit of a fringe hypothesis at the moment, and there's some question on whether there's any extremophiles that could actually survive: Heat of impact from the asteroid which blasted it into space, the long trip through vacuum to earth, and then the energy of impact as the rock it's riding on smacks into earth.

[GScholz]

It would have to ride inside the rock though for obvious reasons, and in a frozen state. Scientists warn people not to touch meteorites that have just impacted Earth, not because they may be hot, but because they're usually still extremely cold. If the microbe survives a deep freeze (and there are some that do here on Earth) the frozen matter around them and their own frozen solid state would protect them from the energy of the impact as long as the meteorite doesn't shatter.

[Saxman]

Yeah, I meant that it was traveling on/inside the rock.

Did you see that article about the Russian scientists who successfully grew a flower from seeds that were buried in permafrost 30,000 years ago?

Life is amazingly resilient, when you get right down to it.

[gyrene81]

I don't think that's really an important inconsistency. Genetic material changes from generation to generation and slowly drifts just due to imperfections/quirks in the mechanics of DNA and DNA replication, that's something inherent, observed and undeniable whether or not you choose to logically apply that observation to large scale changes over billions of years.
If God had created man in his image 6,000 years ago we are just as different from Adam and Eve as we are from the non-Christian version of humanity that existed 6,000 years ago. It's not possible that we are exactly the same, because if there was a moment of creation, that creation included the (certainly highly impressive, but none the less) fairly flawed methods of reproduction and replication that directly observable.
If you choose to believe that populations remain static over many generations then you have simply closed your eyes to the world.
I think it's always important to keep in mind that nothing gets 'better' in any objective way, just different, in ways that are generally more suited toward the environment. Of course science never considers anything better than anything else, just different, and that applies just as much to evolutionary biology as sociology or linguistics.

There are surely features of religions which make them incompatible with the scientific view of history, but I don't think that evolution is one of them (hopefully it's not because drifts in the genotypes of populations happen observably and that's just not disputable).
The problem with the Adam and Eve story of Genesis for example is not necessarily problematic from a standpoint of the mechanisms of evolution, but just from the standpoint that the Earth is far older than 6,000 years. If you suppose that Eden physically existed, but 4.5 billion years ago, we should really expect that modern humans are far different from Adam and Eve, but again I don't think that necessarily is contradictory with Christianity, just the image we were created in had to change along with the world in which we existed, as humans don't live in the heavens with God.
Humans were created in God's image but were not exact replicas of God. It follows that we're imperfect. If you want to suppose that humans were created perfectly then that's kind of silly as we, like other organisms, are pretty overcomplicated, Rube-Goldberg-like, inefficient machines.

I don't necessarily believe that there is no God but I certainly don't believe that humans and the universe were created 6,000 years ago. None the less, evolution and even abiogenesis isn't really incompatible with the idea of an original creator of the universe.

very interesting thoughts.     i'm not far off that line of thinking myself.

the genesis story reads like a being came to earth and did something to give ancient people a level of consciousness that didn't exist before. considering the evidence of human evolution and the probability of multiple lines of origin from hominids to where we are now, i think it is possible that at some point in our history between the time of learning how to control fire and the building of the first communities, something happened to make the idea of a god or gods more than just superstitious tales to control the masses.

[Slate]

  Funny how scientists ponder theories about a multiverse and string theory but never will consider a Being that exists on a different plane of existence from our "Physical world".
  So many wish to bury their thoughts on what they can see or touch. How does stress (mental) make some people exhibit (physical) damage to their bodies? Should not the Heart keep on pumping as a usual natural function? Why do Presidents turn gray after 4 years in office? Should not hair turn gray at an evolutionary pace? Medicine is finally realizing the relation to health with positive thinking.

  There are things beyond the Physical you need to take into account to get the whole picture of life.

   My Mom and I are close and we used to play a game where she would go into a room and concentrate on an object. Then she would leave the room and I would go in and tell her what she was focused on correctly. Not exactly a scientific experiment but interesting non the less. (and we could duplicate it though not every time)
   My wife visited her Mother in the hospital who was very sick and she left to go home. As she was halfway home and had "a funny feeling". She said we have to go back something has happened. Well her Mother had passed at the very time she had the "feeling".
   Coincidence of course you would say? Is psychic ability a natural process? Don't get me started on Ghost stories.      
  

[guncrasher]

funny thing about intelligent design is the basic foundation of it.  Eden you think by now we would have found it thru Google earth.

do I believe it yes,  that's why its called faith.


semp