Early Man

[gyrene81]

I don't think belief in science and having religious faith have to be mutually exclusive.   

absolutely agree...just take care not to say that near any extremists on either side.

You also have interbreeding between H. neanderthalensis and modern H. sapiens which, considering modern humans still possess Neanderthal genetic material, DID lead to fertile offspring.

you might want to look at that research again. the existence of some parts of neanderthal virus dna in some populations does not prove intermingling. current research shows that neanderthals and modern humans did not actually intermingle but a distant ancestor to modern humans may have.

[SlidingHorn]

I doesn't. I know several scientists who are Muslims...

Also, the RCC rejects young-earth creationism & accepts evolution as fact.

Francis Collins (headed the Human Genome Project & currently the Director of the NIH) is a devout Christian.  He also rejects ID as being "not scientifically tenable" and correctly identifies it as what is essentially a god of the gaps issue.  From his PBS interview with Tucker Carlson:

Collins: I think intelligent design sets up a god of the gaps kind of scenario. Well, you know, we haven't yet explained this particular feature of evolution, so god must be right there. If science ultimately proves that those gaps aren't gaps, after all, then where is god? We really ought not to ask people to do that.

Carlson: Does evolution even imply that there's no god?

Collins: Of course not. Evolution, although it's called a theory, in science a theory is a collection of observations that are pulled together into a consistent view of things. Electromagnetic theory, for instance. It doesn't mean it's still hypothetical and people don't think it's right. Biology makes almost no sense without evolution to undergird it. Saying as the opening statement did evolution is a theory, not a fact, that's not really quite an adequate explanation of the solidity of information we have

(EDIT:  Link to the full transcript of the interview - http://faculty.fmcc.suny.edu/mcdarby/tucker_carlson_.htm)

Point being: There's no reason one can't believe in a creator/deity and still accept the fact that evolution happened/happens/is happening.

you might want to look at that research again. the existence of some parts of neanderthal virus dna in some populations does not prove intermingling. current research shows that neanderthals and modern humans did not actually intermingle but a distant ancestor to modern humans may have.

This is not my current understanding, but it's always possible that I'm behind on the topic.  Do you have a link to the study/studies that show this?

[gyrene81]

This is not my current understanding, but it's always possible that I'm behind on the topic.  Do you have a link to the study/studies that show this?

sure...

neanderthal virus dna in modern humans...i think this is fairly current
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn24598-neanderthal-virus-dna-spotted-hiding-in-modern-humans.html#.UozaVOLNkYI



http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/genetics/ancient-dna-and-neanderthals/neanderthal-mitochondrial-dna

[Karnak]

Finding the actual fossil remains of a "transitional form" is immensely improbable; they exist for such a short time. We are lucky to find a single piece of a fossil of a species at some point during its entire existence. Nature is very efficient in destroying any trace of a being's existence. Finding a transitional form would be like finding the wreck of a 109F prototype, one of the transitional forms between 109E and 109F, only on an almost incomprehensible order of magnitude more difficult.

Well, every form is a transitional form between what came before and what came, or will come, after.  Forms may be relatively static for extended periods if there is no evolutionary pressure, but they are still transitional forms.

The whole concept and demand arises from misunderstandings.

[GScholz]

Indeed, but there are so-called "transitional forms" in brief periods of time where evolutionary pressure is great. As the lifeform adapts to this evolutionary pressure the pressure subsides and the lifeform will undergo little change as long as its living conditions doesn't change much. This creates brief periods of time when a creature struggles to adapt and survive followed by a long time of relatively stable/uniform development.

[Saxman]

Indeed, but there are so-called "transitional forms" in brief periods of time where evolutionary pressure is great. As the lifeform adapts to this evolutionary pressure the pressure subsides and the lifeform will undergo little change as long as its living conditions doesn't change much. This creates brief periods of time when a creature struggles to adapt and survive followed by a long time of relatively stable/uniform development.

When you combine that with the VERY specific conditions you need for even the potential of a fossil being formed, it's no wonder such transitional fossils are so rare considering the incompleteness of the record itself. New species are being discovered all the time, but it's still a matter of pure luck to even find A fossil, much less something as significant as a transitional form.

[gyrene81]

our skeletons are symmetrical down our spines, there is a lot of other stuff that can be filled in or is largely inconsequential. It's not like this kind of stuff isn't savagely picked apart when it's found.

if you don't find something like this

(Image removed from quote.)

or this

(Image removed from quote.)

or this "fragment of a jaw"

(Image removed from quote.)

significant then you will never accept anything, even if the past 4 million years are flashed past you and you get to watch human evolution in person

do you remember the iguanodon? the original discovery was a few fossilized teeth. after many subsequent discoveries of many complete fossilized skeletons, it was eventually discovered that the iguanodon was not a species but a genus...eventually. in the case of early hominids, speculation is largely based on skeletal fragments.

such as quoted by a researcher in reference to findings in the republic of georgia... http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/18/science/fossil-skull-may-rewrite-humans-evolutionary-story.html?_r=0

“Had the braincase and the face of Skull 5 been found as separate fossils at different sites in Africa, they might have been attributed to different species,” a co-author of the journal report, Christoph Zollikofer of the University of Zurich, said in a statement. Such was often the practice of researchers, using variations in traits to define new species.

yet in the same article, the same researcher passes more conjecture based on partial remains...

Although the Dmanisi finds look quite different from one another, Dr. Zollikofer said, the hominids who left them were living at the same time and place, and “so could, in principle, represent a single population of a single species.” He and his Zurich colleague, Marcia Ponce de León, conducted the comparative analysis of the Dmanisi specimens.

the key is, could represent, not absolutely represents and to not keep that in mind when it comes to evolutionary research is just as faulty as the reasoning behind faith based religions.

[GScholz]

the key is, could represent, not absolutely represents and to not keep that in mind when it comes to evolutionary research is just as faulty as the reasoning behind faith based religions.

When they find God's jawbone or a fossilized angel, I'll agree to that... 

[gyrene81]

When they find God's jawbone or a fossilized angel, I'll agree to that...  

liar, no you wouldn't...you would be one of the first in line to try debunking it, even if it fell out of an alien spacecraft hovering over your house.

[GScholz]

Take me with you!!!

[gyrene81]

you sir need to seek assistance with your mental health... 

[Arlo]

[Karnak]

the key is, could represent, not absolutely represents and to not keep that in mind when it comes to evolutionary research is just as faulty as the reasoning behind faith based religions.

LOL.  No.

Fossils are a minor sideshow as far as evolutionary evidence and research goes.  They look impressive in museums so they get grossly disproportionate press coverage, but the focus is absolutely genetic now.  DNA and RNA tell us much more than fossils can.

Edit:
An article relevant to this thread:
Genome analysis suggests interbreeding between modern humans, Neanderthals, Denisovans and a mysterious archaic population.

[gyrene81]

LOL.  No.

Fossils are a minor sideshow as far as evolutionary evidence and research goes.  They look impressive in museums so they get grossly disproportionate press coverage, but the focus is absolutely genetic now.  DNA and RNA tell us much more than fossils can.

Edit:
An article relevant to this thread:
Genome analysis suggests interbreeding between modern humans, Neanderthals, Denisovans and a mysterious archaic population.

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.

[mtnman]

I don't think belief in science and having religious faith have to be mutually exclusive.   

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"?