New Discovery: Did Apes Descend from Us?
Old 10-01-2009, 10:44 AM   #1 (permalink)
a Raptors fan

Free DeMar DeRozan

 
zachus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 3,799
Representing:
Default New Discovery: Did Apes Descend from Us?

Quote:
It may well be the closest we will ever come to the missing link between chimps and humans and the most important anthropological find ever.

In a series of studies released today by the journal Science, researchers have revealed a creature that took the first upright steps toward human beings and fundamentally changes the way we look at our earliest evolutionary ancestors.

The research brings into question the belief that our most distant ancestors descended from apes.

What's closer to the truth is that our knuckle dragging cousins descended from us.
For anyone who's interested in this sort of thing, and for those who aren't, this could turn out to be a pretty significant moment in anthropology.

The rest of the article is here: TheStar.com | sciencetech | Did apes descend from us?
zachus is offline   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 10-01-2009, 11:51 AM   #2 (permalink)
www.torontoraptorsforum.com

giant steps
 
'trane's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 15,191
Representing:
Default

if this hypothesis proves to be true, this is a watershed moment. truly fascinating.
'trane is offline   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 10-01-2009, 02:48 PM   #3 (permalink)
is too lazy to respond, you win

Senior Member
 
GrannyFro's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,480
Representing:
Default

Has anyone here seen beetlejuice from howard stern???

I always thought that he could be the missing link between human and ape. or his species that is

GrannyFro is offline   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 10-01-2009, 03:35 PM   #4 (permalink)
is pounding the rock!

Senior Member
 
Superjudge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 17,371
Representing:
Default

who financed the studies, who facilitated it's media attention?
Superjudge is offline   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 10-01-2009, 04:56 PM   #5 (permalink)
pensive

feat. Otto Neurath
 
Ligeia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 2,093
Representing:
Default

Better article:

Fossils Shed New Light on Human Origins - WSJ.com
Ligeia is offline   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 10-01-2009, 05:43 PM   #6 (permalink)
enjoying having the keys to destiny

perusing ancient database
 
ClingRap's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: The far side of the Universe.
Posts: 1,846
Representing:
Default

i really think all of this is conjecture. They make socio-historical assumptions based on skeletal structure, types of teeth and skull size. plus we're using a particular cultural formation (our own) to make assumptions about another.

Last edited by ClingRap; 10-01-2009 at 05:47 PM.
ClingRap is offline   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 10-01-2009, 05:47 PM   #7 (permalink)
a paranoid android

My name is Iņigo Montoya
 
Belsius's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Madrid, Spain
Posts: 8,602
Representing:
Default

Maybe I didnt understand correctly the article. But doesnt this new theory say that both homo sapiens and apes descend from the same link instead of that the apes descend from Homo Sapiens like the title says?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091001/...ci_before_lucy

Quote:
Rather than humans evolving from an ancient chimp-like creature, the new find provides evidence that chimps and humans evolved from some long-ago common ancestor — but each evolved and changed separately along the way.

Last edited by Belsius; 10-01-2009 at 05:50 PM.
Belsius is offline   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 10-01-2009, 07:13 PM   #8 (permalink)
LX
effin' ineffable

In the Paint
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Toronto
Posts: 30,071
Representing:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Superjudge View Post
who financed the studies, who facilitated it's media attention?
Those damn dirty apes - obviously.
LX is offline   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 10-01-2009, 07:37 PM   #9 (permalink)
pensive

feat. Otto Neurath
 
Ligeia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 2,093
Representing:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Belsius View Post
Maybe I didnt understand correctly the article. But doesnt this new theory say that both homo sapiens and apes descend from the same link instead of that the apes descend from Homo Sapiens like the title says?

Before Lucy came Ardi, new earliest hominid found - Yahoo! News
Well, there's something fundamentally wrong in the title "Did Apes ascend from us?" The answer to that is obviously no on its face.

What they discovered is that our common ancestor is likely very different than we had imagined. Previously, our idea of a common ancestor was that of one very similar to modern chimps and apes: stooped stance and gait, which works with walking with support of hands/knuckles. Chimps and apes were considered very similar to these ancestors, whereas humans were believed to have changed significantly in their morphology.

Instead, it appears that our ancestor had a stance very similar to that of the current homo sapiens sapiens, and had hands capable of dexterity that, until now, would have been considered a recent development. On the one hand, the human branch of the tree stayed very similar in these morphological respects, but evolved a great deal in brain size. On the other hand, the chimp and ape branches of the tree seem to have evolved what we had previously considered primitive features, namely the stooped stance, walking on hands, and poor dexterity.

What it suggests is that much of human evolution has been centered on the brain, and much of ape and chimp evolution has been centered on the morphology. The human brain made it suited for its social future and the chimip and ape body made it suited for their jungle future.


To put it simply:

Quote:
"It is the chimps and gorillas that have been evolving like crazy in terms of limbs and locomotion, not hominids," said Kent State University anthropologist Owen Lovejoy, a senior scientist on the research team. "We took a different tack. We went social."
Ligeia is offline   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 10-02-2009, 10:24 AM   #10 (permalink)
a dick

Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 3,138
Representing:
Default

The theory of evolution, just like most commonly accepted theories, is flawed in many ways... Widely accepted scientific theories are basically religions and so I'll just step back now...
Apollo is offline   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 10-02-2009, 10:33 AM   #11 (permalink)
www.torontoraptorsforum.com

giant steps
 
'trane's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 15,191
Representing:
Default

apollo: while i agree with your point to an extent (i understand your point to be that widely accepted scientific theories inspire faith to the point that they begin to stifle proper critical inquiry), i would stop well short of a comparison to religion. religions have absolutely no scientific basis at all. the faith they inspie is based on absolutely nothing substantial. at least theories like evolution are centred on a rational inquiry and are, at least partially and on face value, open to criticism.

the fault lies with the dogmatic adherents, not with the theory. the same cannot, in any sense, be said about religion.

Last edited by 'trane; 10-02-2009 at 12:55 PM.
'trane is offline   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 10-02-2009, 12:50 PM   #12 (permalink)
pensive

feat. Otto Neurath
 
Ligeia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 2,093
Representing:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Apollo View Post
The theory of evolution, just like most commonly accepted theories, is flawed in many ways... Widely accepted scientific theories are basically religions and so I'll just step back now...
Widely accepted scientific theories are the opposite of religion, at the very least in their quality of being provisionally true. They require evidence to hold any water, whereas religion relies on unsubstantiated revelation. If you could demonstrate that the theory of electromagnetism, the germ theory, the theory of gravity, or the theory of evolution were wrong, you would become one of the most revered scientists of all time.

When you say that the theory of evolution is flawed in many ways, in what ways do you mean?
Ligeia is offline   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 10-02-2009, 09:08 PM   #13 (permalink)
a dick

Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 3,138
Representing:
Default

Mainstream science is reluctant to listen to new ideas. Most scientists are afraid to touch certain subjects because its career suicide.

I'll use Christianity as my religion example. Christianity resisted any new ideas for many centuries. Most intellectuals dared not touch certain topics because essentially they were placing themselves on a stake, blade or noose by going there, as they knew this would be the end result; essentially committing suicide.

I'm saying there are parallels. Those who believe in scientific theories typically are just as defensive about their beliefs as devote religious people. Religion can not be proven by numbers but the thing is, many scientific theories cannot be proven by number either. Most scientific theories can be supported by numbers to a certain point but virtually any physics theory taught to kids today breaks down under certain conditions. Theories help us understand the universe on a greater level but most of them are wrong and we just don't know it yet or aren't willing to accept it. History shows this time and time again. Everything I learned in physic class as a kid is now being turned upside down by string theory. One day string theory will be turned upside down by something else. In each transition there is great resistance, just as religious leaders typically guard their own beliefs against new idea or interpretations.

I say it again. Science is a religion or at least it carries the same sort of cultural limiting traits which holds humanity back from its true potential. There are many scriptures and one is "Darwin's theory of evolution"... A scripture which many believe but a scripture with no air tight case on any facet of life when a magnifying glass is applied. Bishops ruled our minds in the past, telling us what is right and wrong even though our own logical, rational minds deep down did not agree. Now scientist and politicians rule our minds, telling us what is right and wrong even though our own logical, rational minds deep down did not agree. In each case, if you go against the herd you get singled out and ridiculed. If society says its so then don't dare deviate...This is a law of life which can be supported more strongly than anything you can come up with on the theory of evolution.

Last edited by Apollo; 10-02-2009 at 09:16 PM.
Apollo is offline   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 10-03-2009, 02:58 AM   #14 (permalink)
mirin' Gao-sthetics

Distributor of Swag
 
CommunistCrunch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Memory Lane
Posts: 796
Representing:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Apollo View Post
Mainstream science is reluctant to listen to new ideas. Most scientists are afraid to touch certain subjects because its career suicide.

I'll use Christianity as my religion example. Christianity resisted any new ideas for many centuries. Most intellectuals dared not touch certain topics because essentially they were placing themselves on a stake, blade or noose by going there, as they knew this would be the end result; essentially committing suicide.

I'm saying there are parallels. Those who believe in scientific theories typically are just as defensive about their beliefs as devote religious people. Religion can not be proven by numbers but the thing is, many scientific theories cannot be proven by number either. Most scientific theories can be supported by numbers to a certain point but virtually any physics theory taught to kids today breaks down under certain conditions. Theories help us understand the universe on a greater level but most of them are wrong and we just don't know it yet or aren't willing to accept it. History shows this time and time again. Everything I learned in physic class as a kid is now being turned upside down by string theory. One day string theory will be turned upside down by something else. In each transition there is great resistance, just as religious leaders typically guard their own beliefs against new idea or interpretations.

I say it again. Science is a religion or at least it carries the same sort of cultural limiting traits which holds humanity back from its true potential. There are many scriptures and one is "Darwin's theory of evolution"... A scripture which many believe but a scripture with no air tight case on any facet of life when a magnifying glass is applied. Bishops ruled our minds in the past, telling us what is right and wrong even though our own logical, rational minds deep down did not agree. Now scientist and politicians rule our minds, telling us what is right and wrong even though our own logical, rational minds deep down did not agree. In each case, if you go against the herd you get singled out and ridiculed. If society says its so then don't dare deviate...This is a law of life which can be supported more strongly than anything you can come up with on the theory of evolution.
Beautiful
CommunistCrunch is offline   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 10-03-2009, 03:55 AM   #15 (permalink)
www.torontoraptorsforum.com

giant steps
 
'trane's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 15,191
Representing:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Apollo View Post
Mainstream science is reluctant to listen to new ideas. Most scientists are afraid to touch certain subjects because its career suicide.

I'll use Christianity as my religion example. Christianity resisted any new ideas for many centuries. Most intellectuals dared not touch certain topics because essentially they were placing themselves on a stake, blade or noose by going there, as they knew this would be the end result; essentially committing suicide.

I'm saying there are parallels. Those who believe in scientific theories typically are just as defensive about their beliefs as devote religious people. Religion can not be proven by numbers but the thing is, many scientific theories cannot be proven by number either. Most scientific theories can be supported by numbers to a certain point but virtually any physics theory taught to kids today breaks down under certain conditions. Theories help us understand the universe on a greater level but most of them are wrong and we just don't know it yet or aren't willing to accept it. History shows this time and time again. Everything I learned in physic class as a kid is now being turned upside down by string theory. One day string theory will be turned upside down by something else. In each transition there is great resistance, just as religious leaders typically guard their own beliefs against new idea or interpretations.

I say it again. Science is a religion or at least it carries the same sort of cultural limiting traits which holds humanity back from its true potential. There are many scriptures and one is "Darwin's theory of evolution"... A scripture which many believe but a scripture with no air tight case on any facet of life when a magnifying glass is applied. Bishops ruled our minds in the past, telling us what is right and wrong even though our own logical, rational minds deep down did not agree. Now scientist and politicians rule our minds, telling us what is right and wrong even though our own logical, rational minds deep down did not agree. In each case, if you go against the herd you get singled out and ridiculed. If society says its so then don't dare deviate...This is a law of life which can be supported more strongly than anything you can come up with on the theory of evolution.
perhaps i agree with you on much of this apollo, but i would certainly put it a different way.

i think we are ready to accept that theories can be wrong, and i think that many people do it all the time. any good scientist works from the premise that the whole of their field is open to change. dogmatic adherence to scientific gospel is bad science, of which a great many people are guilty. but that is a problem with people, not with science. religion - any faith - compels you to obey the gospel, taking away the ability of that person to choose to make inquiries. when science becomes faith, people are failing to do proper science. there are plenty of people out there critiquing evolution and studying biological history and teaching and publishing research. that they don't make it to the consciousness of the mainstream is, again, a fault of people, not of science. people hold back critical thought. people guard their resumes and the things they have built their careers on. people stifle criticism and defend antiquated ideas. science doesn't do any of these things.

i am quoting you here, but with the italicized words changed. the point is a great one, i just think the emphasis is wrong:

Quote:
Science is like a religion when people let it carry the same sort of cultural limiting traits that hold humanity back from its true potential. There are many scriptures and one is "Darwin's theory of evolution"... A scripture which many believe but a scripture with no air tight case on any facet of life when a magnifying glass is applied.
and you sum it up perfectly in your last sentences, when you put the blame squarely on people, not science:

Quote:
If society says its so then don't dare deviate...This is a law of life which can be supported more strongly than anything you can come up with on the theory of evolution.
science isn't a religion. people practice bad science by treating it like one.
'trane is offline   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 10-05-2009, 07:57 PM   #16 (permalink)
Bmats7
is pounding the rock! (Edit)

Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Representing:
Default

There are things that science cannot explain. Science is bound by it's own laws; there are things outside of those laws.

Such as the first cause, the great singularity etc... Basically, what caused the first cause.

These things are outside the realm of human understanding much like "the beginning of time" or "infinity" or even an expanding universe (ie... what is it expanding into?). Is the universe folding in on itself? If you think of "the beginning of time" you always will think... "ya, but what was before that? before that? before that? etc.

Humans cannot comprehend such things. And that is why they try to follow something that will answer everything for them whether it is true or not (God).
  Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 10-05-2009, 08:05 PM   #17 (permalink)
www.torontoraptorsforum.com

giant steps
 
'trane's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 15,191
Representing:
Default

why humans continue to insist that there must have been a first cause is completely beyond me. it is equally as likely that things always have and always will exist. the idea of a beginning is a human construct, and so is the notion of god.
'trane is offline   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 10-05-2009, 09:11 PM   #18 (permalink)
Bmats7
is pounding the rock! (Edit)

Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Representing:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 'trane View Post
why humans continue to insist that there must have been a first cause is completely beyond me. it is equally as likely that things always have and always will exist. the idea of a beginning is a human construct, and so is the notion of god.
If it's equally likely... ie.. 50% .. then why is it completely beyond you? lol... just because you believe in the other 50%?

But anyways, I'm sure you guys have had a religion vs. science debate here somewhere already lol. This is not really the appropriate thread.
  Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 10-05-2009, 09:12 PM   #19 (permalink)
www.torontoraptorsforum.com

giant steps
 
'trane's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 15,191
Representing:
Default

the key word is 'insist'. that does not lend itself to 50-50. nice try though.
'trane is offline   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 10-06-2009, 12:55 AM   #20 (permalink)
Bmats7
is pounding the rock! (Edit)

Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Representing:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 'trane View Post
why humans continue to insist that there must have been a first cause is completely beyond me. it is equally as likely that things always have and always will exist. the idea of a beginning is a human construct, and so is the notion of god.
The way this is put together... you're saying the first cause is as equally likely as something that has always existed. Which is 50/50.

So it's equally likely that matter initially appeared from nothing, as it is that God appeared from nothing right? I mean neither of them make sense using the laws of science... therefore we can't use science in things that are too complicated for the mind of men. Because men use science to explain a world that we see/understand.
  Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Discovery Channel: Real Life Superheroes lang Entertainment Lounge 2 10-04-2008 09:23 AM
I'm going to be on a new show on Discovery Network Jay News & Announcements 6 09-09-2008 10:11 AM


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:47 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright RaptorsForum.com 2005-2011

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24