New ancestor of man

1Fast400 Forums > Off Topic


Posted by: azfittrainer Oct 1 2009, 02:56 PM
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33110809/ns/technology_and_science-science/?GT1=43001

Posted by: joseph23573 Oct 2 2009, 01:21 PM
THE ARTICLE SAYS THE SKELETON IS NEITHER CHIMP NOR HUMAN...


creationism vs evolution....

Posted by: jcanton Oct 3 2009, 01:19 PM
This was a pretty interesting article. I'm curious to see what ends up coming out of this.

Posted by: azfittrainer Oct 4 2009, 12:29 PM
QUOTE (joseph23573 @ Oct 2 2009, 01:21 PM)
THE ARTICLE SAYS THE SKELETON IS NEITHER CHIMP NOR HUMAN...


creationism vs evolution....

How is it creationism vs evolution?

Posted by: joseph23573 Oct 20 2009, 11:36 AM
humans are not decendents of chimps or any kind of ape like creature.


similar in many ways, but completely different.



oh boy, here we go again!!! laugh.gif

Posted by: azfittrainer Oct 20 2009, 11:40 AM
No one is disputing that they aren't the same. They have a common ancestor.

Posted by: joseph23573 Oct 20 2009, 03:08 PM
everyone has their own opinion...

however i believe we were "created", and are the center of creation. all other species of animals are different, not so much physically, as we are all made of elements from the earth and outer space, but rather spiritually different.


im not about to embark on a 20 page tot for tat laugh.gif


its a cool discovery though, all the different animals which arent around anylonger, but were before...

Posted by: PotentiallyFatal Oct 20 2009, 03:21 PM
user posted image

Posted by: PotentiallyFatal Oct 20 2009, 03:22 PM
QUOTE (PotentiallyFatal @ Oct 20 2009, 03:21 PM)
user posted image

ID HIT IT!

Posted by: MichiganHater Oct 20 2009, 04:20 PM
kinda looks like roids

Posted by: joseph23573 Oct 21 2009, 07:51 AM
QUOTE
QUOTE (PotentiallyFatal @ Oct 20 2009, 03:21 PM)
(IMG:http://www.cbc.ca/gfx/images/news/photos/2009/10/01/ardi-drawing.jpg) 


ID HIT IT!



LOL laugh.gif

Posted by: DR X Oct 21 2009, 11:39 AM
Makes you wonder why after 4.4 million years apes just remaind damm stinking dirty aps and man according to scientists evolved?

Posted by: joseph23573 Oct 21 2009, 12:37 PM
im pretty sure the second law of thermodynamics renders the theory of evolution useless...

Posted by: azfittrainer Oct 21 2009, 02:47 PM
QUOTE (joseph23573 @ Oct 21 2009, 12:37 PM)
im pretty sure the second law of thermodynamics renders the theory of evolution useless...

"In a system, a process that occurs will tend to increase the total entropy of the universe."
Exactly how does that negate the possibility of change in species over time? Evolution exists, by evidence of the fact that humans aren't all one race.

Posted by: azfittrainer Oct 21 2009, 02:48 PM
QUOTE (DR X @ Oct 21 2009, 11:39 AM)
Makes you wonder why after 4.4 million years apes just remaind damm stinking dirty aps and man according to scientists evolved?

Apes and other primates have evolved. All modern primates evolved from species similar to this animal. Modern primates (including humans) are different from this ancient species. So hence apes have evolved.

Posted by: joseph23573 Oct 21 2009, 08:24 PM
QUOTE
‘Missing link’ primate isn’t a link after all
Expert: Ida is as far from monkey-ape-human ancestry as primate can be

HO / AFP/Getty Images
A new analysis says that a 47-million-year-old skeleton of the most complete fossil primate ever found, unveiled May 19 at the American Museum of Natural History in New York, is actually as far removed from the monkey-ape-human ancestry as a primate can be.
View related photos 

  Most popular
• Most viewed  • Top rated

Predictions 101
  Heisman winner Bradford's decision on hold
Most viewed on msnbc.com
  Child’s body found in search for missing girl
What happens if the dollar crashes?
High-speed chase ends when OnStar halts SUV
Plants can recognize rivals and fight, study says
African churches denounce children as ‘witches’
Most viewed on msnbc.com

  RSS feeds on msnbc.com
Add these headlines to your news reader

Science 
Learn more about RSS

updated 12:52 p.m. ET, Wed., Oct . 21, 2009
NEW YORK - Remember Ida, the fossil discovery announced last May with its own book and TV documentary? A publicity blitz called it "the link" that would reveal the earliest evolutionary roots of monkeys, apes and humans.

Experts protested that Ida wasn't even a close relative. And now a new analysis supports their reaction.

In fact, Ida is as far removed from the monkey-ape-human ancestry as a primate could be, says Erik Seiffert of Stony Brook University in New York.

Story continues below ↓
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
advertisement | your ad here

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

He and his colleagues compared 360 specific anatomical features of 117 living and extinct primate species to draw up a family tree. They report the results in Thursday's issue of the journal Nature.

Ida is a skeleton of a 47 million-year-old cat-sized creature found in Germany. It starred in a book, "The Link: Uncovering Our Earliest Ancestor."

Ida represents a previously unknown primate species called Darwinius. The scientists who formally announced the finding said they weren't claiming Darwinius was a direct ancestor of monkeys, apes and humans. But they did argue that it belongs in the same major evolutionary grouping, and that it showed what an actual ancestor of that era might have looked like.

The new analysis says Darwinius does not belong in the same primate category as monkeys, apes and humans. Instead, the analysis concluded, it falls into the other major grouping, which includes lemurs.

Experts agreed.

"This is a rigorous analysis based on many features," said Eric Sargis, an anthropology professor at Yale. He said he'd found the argument of the Darwinius researchers unconvincing, so the new result came as no surprise.

Video

  Fossil frenzy: Is this the mother of all monkeys?
May 19: The American Museum of Natural History on Tuesday unveiled at 47 million-year-old fossil that could be a missing link in the study of human evolution.
Nightly News


In fact, it confirms what most scientists think, said David Begun, a paleoanthropologist at the University of Toronto.

Jorn Hurum of the Natural History Museum in Oslo, Norway, an author of the Ida paper, said he welcomed the new analysis.

Darwinius is an example of a group of primates called adapoids, and "we are happy to start the scientific discussion" about what Ida means for where adapoids fit on the primate family tree, he wrote in an e-mail.


d'oh!!! laugh.gif


evolution=theory

theory=something not proven


Posted by: DownTown Oct 21 2009, 08:28 PM
That pic just looks like a hairy black chick..... Im just saying.

Posted by: joseph23573 Oct 22 2009, 07:57 AM
the fossil they found that they think we "evolved" from, is more like a cat than human.

nice try scientists....


maybe some day people will realize that all the answers cannot and will not be found through investigation and science. perhaps you arent supposed to know everything, or designed to not know everything, for a reason.


im just sayin....

Posted by: azfittrainer Oct 22 2009, 10:49 AM
QUOTE (joseph23573 @ Oct 22 2009, 07:57 AM)
the fossil they found that they think we "evolved" from, is more like a cat than human.

nice try scientists....


maybe some day people will realize that all the answers cannot and will not be found through investigation and science. perhaps you arent supposed to know everything, or designed to not know everything, for a reason.


im just sayin....

What do you mean "nice try" what is it that you think scientists are trying to do? Science is about finding things, and trying to find an explanation that best fits the data. There is no mass hidden agenda.

Posted by: azfittrainer Oct 22 2009, 10:51 AM
QUOTE (joseph23573 @ Oct 21 2009, 08:24 PM)
QUOTE
‘Missing link’ primate isn’t a link after all
Expert: Ida is as far from monkey-ape-human ancestry as primate can be

HO / AFP/Getty Images
A new analysis says that a 47-million-year-old skeleton of the most complete fossil primate ever found, unveiled May 19 at the American Museum of Natural History in New York, is actually as far removed from the monkey-ape-human ancestry as a primate can be.
View related photos 

  Most popular
• Most viewed  • Top rated

Predictions 101
  Heisman winner Bradford's decision on hold
Most viewed on msnbc.com
  Child’s body found in search for missing girl
What happens if the dollar crashes?
High-speed chase ends when OnStar halts SUV
Plants can recognize rivals and fight, study says
African churches denounce children as ‘witches’
Most viewed on msnbc.com

  RSS feeds on msnbc.com
Add these headlines to your news reader

Science 
Learn more about RSS

updated 12:52 p.m. ET, Wed., Oct . 21, 2009
NEW YORK - Remember Ida, the fossil discovery announced last May with its own book and TV documentary? A publicity blitz called it "the link" that would reveal the earliest evolutionary roots of monkeys, apes and humans.

Experts protested that Ida wasn't even a close relative. And now a new analysis supports their reaction.

In fact, Ida is as far removed from the monkey-ape-human ancestry as a primate could be, says Erik Seiffert of Stony Brook University in New York.

Story continues below ↓
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
advertisement | your ad here

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

He and his colleagues compared 360 specific anatomical features of 117 living and extinct primate species to draw up a family tree. They report the results in Thursday's issue of the journal Nature.

Ida is a skeleton of a 47 million-year-old cat-sized creature found in Germany. It starred in a book, "The Link: Uncovering Our Earliest Ancestor."

Ida represents a previously unknown primate species called Darwinius. The scientists who formally announced the finding said they weren't claiming Darwinius was a direct ancestor of monkeys, apes and humans. But they did argue that it belongs in the same major evolutionary grouping, and that it showed what an actual ancestor of that era might have looked like.

The new analysis says Darwinius does not belong in the same primate category as monkeys, apes and humans. Instead, the analysis concluded, it falls into the other major grouping, which includes lemurs.

Experts agreed.

"This is a rigorous analysis based on many features," said Eric Sargis, an anthropology professor at Yale. He said he'd found the argument of the Darwinius researchers unconvincing, so the new result came as no surprise.

Video

   Fossil frenzy: Is this the mother of all monkeys?
May 19: The American Museum of Natural History on Tuesday unveiled at 47 million-year-old fossil that could be a missing link in the study of human evolution.
Nightly News


In fact, it confirms what most scientists think, said David Begun, a paleoanthropologist at the University of Toronto.

Jorn Hurum of the Natural History Museum in Oslo, Norway, an author of the Ida paper, said he welcomed the new analysis.

Darwinius is an example of a group of primates called adapoids, and "we are happy to start the scientific discussion" about what Ida means for where adapoids fit on the primate family tree, he wrote in an e-mail.


d'oh!!! laugh.gif


evolution=theory

theory=something not proven

Gravity is a theory, do you not believe it's true?

Posted by: joseph23573 Oct 22 2009, 02:17 PM
"nice try" means, that basically they are trying to prove evolution is a process which made modern day humans from "algae" or "monkeys"... or some bizarre animal which no longer exists.


QUOTE
Scientifically speaking, a theory is GREATER than a law. Theories are the MOST ACCEPTED status that any scientific idea can attain.

Laws only explain specific, observable, repeatable events in similar circumstances. They do not posit a mechanism or explanation for the event. Theories do this by encompassing laws and placing/explaining the them in a context with other laws, evidence, facts, models, hypotheses, and observations.

For example, there is an Ohm's Law, a Fick's law of diffusion, and a Hopkinson's law...but all of them fall UNDER the umbrella of the electromagnetic theory. The laws serve to support the theory.

Also, while Newton did formulate a universal law of gravitation, the larger concept and study of gravity itself is a theory.
Newton's law of gravitation states that "every point mass attracts every other point mass by a force pointing along the line intersecting both points. The force is directly proportional to the product of the two masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between the point masses."
But this only tells us how two bodies will react under the influence of gravity. It does not tell us what gravity is, where gravity comes from, what gives gravity the force it has, etc. The theory of gravity contains all those ideas AND the law of universal gravitation within it.

Laws are more like "If A happens, then B will happen."
Theories are more like "B will happen BECAUSE..."

It is an old misconception that there is some mythical and direct chain of events that says hypotheses become theories and theories become laws, but this is simply untrue. No doubt your teachers taught you incorrect or outdated understandings of science. Most basic science textbooks nowdays correct the old myth of any clear, linear science promotion for ideas.

For the record gravity is a theory.
The fact that your body is made up of cells is also a "mere" theory (cell theory). It will NEVER become a "law" that you are made of cells. Never. Yet the whole of modern medicine is built upon the idea and you can easily look at your own cells under a microscope.
The fact that the moon goes around the earth and that the earth goes around the sun are also scientific theories--because these are known to be absolutely, factually true and "theory" the highest form of scientific acceptance (it is the heliocentric theory, not the heliocentric law--and it never will be).
That the axial tilt of the earth causes the seasons is a theory.
Nuclear fission is a theory (one so well proven we built one hell of a bomb on it).
Electro-magneticism is a theory.
Everything being made of atoms is known as atomic theory.
That light and sound travel in predictable, controllable, alterable, measurable waves is wave theory.
Etc. etc. etc.


I found that interesting.....contributed by "wesley B" on yahoo answers.

Posted by: Jayv24 Oct 23 2009, 02:42 AM
QUOTE (DR X @ Oct 21 2009, 11:39 AM)
Makes you wonder why after 4.4 million years apes just remaind damm stinking dirty aps and man according to scientists evolved?

The same way the dog evolved from the wolf...yet there are still wolves in the wild.

Mutations.



Unless you guys believe once upon a time, packs of Poodles roamed around.

Posted by: joseph23573 Oct 23 2009, 08:12 AM
dogs were breed purposely, correct? to be domesticated.... unsure.gif

Posted by: PotentiallyFatal Oct 23 2009, 10:52 AM
QUOTE (Jayv24 @ Oct 23 2009, 02:42 AM)
Unless you guys believe once upon a time, packs of Poodles roamed around.

You never know...

user posted image

Posted by: Jayv24 Oct 23 2009, 01:14 PM
QUOTE (joseph23573 @ Oct 23 2009, 08:12 AM)
dogs were breed purposely, correct? to be domesticated.... unsure.gif

Eventually.

But initially it started as just co-habitating with them. Man saw all the good qualities of himself in the wolf. (bravery, stamina, loyalty, hunting ability)

I doubt early man knew mutations would occur.

Later on, we bred the mutants that had traits we saw as "Desirable"....But i doubt initially the goal was to turn them into beagles.

I could be wrong. Life is full of surprises.

Posted by: joseph23573 Oct 23 2009, 02:23 PM
kinda crazy to think a mini yorkshire terrier descended from wolves laugh.gif

Posted by: azfittrainer Oct 23 2009, 02:37 PM
QUOTE (joseph23573 @ Oct 22 2009, 02:17 PM)
"nice try" means, that basically they are trying to prove evolution is a process which made modern day humans from "algae" or "monkeys"... or some bizarre animal which no longer exists.


QUOTE
Scientifically speaking, a theory is GREATER than a law. Theories are the MOST ACCEPTED status that any scientific idea can attain.

Laws only explain specific, observable, repeatable events in similar circumstances. They do not posit a mechanism or explanation for the event. Theories do this by encompassing laws and placing/explaining the them in a context with other laws, evidence, facts, models, hypotheses, and observations.

For example, there is an Ohm's Law, a Fick's law of diffusion, and a Hopkinson's law...but all of them fall UNDER the umbrella of the electromagnetic theory. The laws serve to support the theory.

Also, while Newton did formulate a universal law of gravitation, the larger concept and study of gravity itself is a theory.
Newton's law of gravitation states that "every point mass attracts every other point mass by a force pointing along the line intersecting both points. The force is directly proportional to the product of the two masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between the point masses."
But this only tells us how two bodies will react under the influence of gravity. It does not tell us what gravity is, where gravity comes from, what gives gravity the force it has, etc. The theory of gravity contains all those ideas AND the law of universal gravitation within it.

Laws are more like "If A happens, then B will happen."
Theories are more like "B will happen BECAUSE..."

It is an old misconception that there is some mythical and direct chain of events that says hypotheses become theories and theories become laws, but this is simply untrue. No doubt your teachers taught you incorrect or outdated understandings of science. Most basic science textbooks nowdays correct the old myth of any clear, linear science promotion for ideas.

For the record gravity is a theory.
The fact that your body is made up of cells is also a "mere" theory (cell theory). It will NEVER become a "law" that you are made of cells. Never. Yet the whole of modern medicine is built upon the idea and you can easily look at your own cells under a microscope.
The fact that the moon goes around the earth and that the earth goes around the sun are also scientific theories--because these are known to be absolutely, factually true and "theory" the highest form of scientific acceptance (it is the heliocentric theory, not the heliocentric law--and it never will be).
That the axial tilt of the earth causes the seasons is a theory.
Nuclear fission is a theory (one so well proven we built one hell of a bomb on it).
Electro-magneticism is a theory.
Everything being made of atoms is known as atomic theory.
That light and sound travel in predictable, controllable, alterable, measurable waves is wave theory.
Etc. etc. etc.


I found that interesting.....contributed by "wesley B" on yahoo answers.

They aren't trying to "prove" anything. Evolution is the explanation that best fits the data that is present in the fossil evidence, as well as the dna evidence. Theories explain phenomenon, they aren't "fact".

Posted by: azfittrainer Oct 23 2009, 02:39 PM
QUOTE (Jayv24 @ Oct 23 2009, 02:42 AM)




Unless you guys believe once upon a time, packs of Poodles roamed around.

That's a terrrifying thought