Tanzanian Tracks Show Man's Early Steps

---

Has anyone noticed that I dont get involved in these discussions anymore!?!?

Man Im proud of myself!!!

Originally Posted By: StephieJHas anyone noticed that I dont get involved in these discussions anymore!?!?HA!caught ya!

Originally Posted By: bobaliciousI think there are a lot of people who don't want to accept it because they think it puts doubt on the rest of their beliefs.I think some don't want to believe in God for the very same reason. Quote:They feel that they can't have evolution AND God, that its one or the other. You keep saying evolution...but it's "natural selection" that is the dream-fantasy created by athiests to keep God out of the equation. But when brought under scientific scrutiny, natural selection has no leg to stand on...it might have thought of that ahead of time and evolved one if it really worked to begin with, don't you think?

So then what are you going to do with me?;)

Originally Posted By: thor Originally Posted By: bobaliciousI think there are a lot of people who don't want to accept it because they think it puts doubt on the rest of their beliefs.I think some don't want to believe in God for the very same reason.I can't believe I'm gonna say this, but can we not talk about God? I kinda wanna keep this as a scientific conversation. Originally Posted By: thor Quote:They feel that they can't have evolution AND God, that its one or the other. You keep saying evolution...but it's "natural selection" that is the dream-fantasy created by athiests to keep God out of the equation. But when brought under scientific scrutiny, natural selection has no leg to stand on...it might have thought of that ahead of time and evolved one if it really worked to begin with, don't you think? Please excuse my terms, I use Evolution to mean Evolution by Natural Selection.Under scientific scrutiny, Natural Selection stands incredibly strong. If you have evidence towards the contrary, please let me know. Where does Natural Selection fail?

Originally Posted By: bobalicious Originally Posted By: thor Originally Posted By: bobaliciousI think there are a lot of people who don't want to accept it because they think it puts doubt on the rest of their beliefs.I think some don't want to believe in God for the very same reason.I can't believe I'm gonna say this, but can we not talk about God? I kinda wanna keep this as a scientific conversation.No...it's germaine to the discussion (see below). Quote:Under scientific scrutiny, Natural Selection stands incredibly strong.It stands on faith alone. So I guess it depends on how strong your faith is. Quote:Where does Natural Selection fail? It fails everything from the scientific ability to produce genetic special-varation to a complete void of supporting examples of its work. It's a big zero...there is nothing that supports such a notion, other than faith in the idea that there need not be a God. Remove that faith and there is nothing supporting it. At least much of the Bible has been corroberated by archaelogical and other scientific investigation..."natural selection" has no such evidence and therefor, in my opinion, requires more faith than does belief in the Bible.Natural Selection is a religion of atheism.

Originally Posted By: thor Quote:Where does Natural Selection fail? It fails everything from the scientific ability to produce genetic special-varation to a complete void of supporting examples of its work.Nylon-Eating Bacteria  Originally Posted By: thorIt's a big zero...there is nothing that supports such a notion, other than faith in the idea that there need not be a God. Remove that faith and there is nothing supporting it.See, this is what I was talking about. Its ridiculous to think that Natural Selection eliminates, or is even intended to eliminate God. For all we know, if God exists, Natural Selection is the method by which He created us. You may see that as God playing dice with our fate, but how about seeing it as God's brilliant foresight and planning that he created the Universe in such a precise way that without needing to get physically involved after Creation, his intended creation emerged just as He had planned. That seems a lot more impressive than a God who just blinked us all into existence yet somehow left false evidence that we had evolved. Or even a God who gave our evolutionary path gentle nudges to get us where we are. Snooker wouldn't be that great of a sport if you were allowed nudge the ball whenever it wasn't going your way. Originally Posted By: thorAt least much of the Bible has been corroberated by archaelogical and other scientific investigation..."natural selection" has no such evidence and therefor, in my opinion, requires more faith than does belief in the Bible.Natural Selection is a religion of atheism. OK, how about the story of the tower of Babel? No archaeological evidence of such a tower being built and a pitiful attempt at trying to explain the existence of different languages. Do you know what does explain different languages? Evolution!

While I'm not going to have much to contribute, I'm tired, and there's a bit much in this discussion for me to stay consistently on top of, I do want to point a couple things out.  Originally Posted By: bobDo you know what does explain different languages? Evolution! No, not really. Languages were developed by [for example] "ug" in Caveman Japanese meaning tree and "loof" in Caveman English meaning tree. Evolution has nothing to do with it, other than words have been revised/commonized(common spellings)/etc. They formed based on whatever we decided to call 'x' thing, and language being "alive", vocabularies expanding, dictionaries too, etc.  Originally Posted By: bobSee, this is what I was talking about. Its ridiculous to think that Natural Selection eliminates, or is even intended to eliminate God. For all we know, if God exists, Natural Selection is the method by which He created us.... Hehe! This sounds like the theory that everything exists simply because I wish it to, becuase I'm here to see it! Isn't philosophy fun? [Bonus points for the name of that theory, I can't remember it...]  Originally Posted By: bobWhere does Evo/NS fail? I must agree with thor. Even in the works of Charles Darwin, natural selection or evolution has never been proved/substantiated to a reasonable degree. But I like your spin too, Bob. A lot of the counter points you guys [bob, thor mostly] is pretty much my whole belief system. And with that, I'll be back anoter day, when I haven't been up since 4:30 [roughly 16 hours now], and am not preparing to go to sleep, just so I can experience another day in MY universe. >>Woo, second page!

Originally Posted By: LuvMyCats Originally Posted By: bobDo you know what does explain different languages? Evolution! No, not really. Languages were developed by [for example] "ug" in Caveman Japanese meaning tree and "loof" in Caveman English meaning tree. Evolution has nothing to do with it, other than words have been revised/commonized(common spellings)/etc. They formed based on whatever we decided to call 'x' thing, and language being "alive", vocabularies expanding, dictionaries too, etc.Most, if not all languages, are mainly believed to have originated from one, albeit extremely basic, language. Although its not clear when humans began to talk, the anatomical ability to achieve most of our vocal abilities has been around for about 164,000 years. Although more advanced languages definitely emerged independently, the original use of sound-object association most likely emerged before the existence of our MRCA, or Most Recent Common Ancestor meaning that it emerged before the mass migration of Homo Sapien groups. Even Homo Neanderthals are believed to have had a basic language. Originally Posted By: LuvMyCats Originally Posted By: bobSee, this is what I was talking about. Its ridiculous to think that Natural Selection eliminates, or is even intended to eliminate God. For all we know, if God exists, Natural Selection is the method by which He created us.... Hehe! This sounds like the theory that everything exists simply because I wish it to, becuase I'm here to see it! Isn't philosophy fun? [Bonus points for the name of that theory, I can't remember it...]I certainly don't believe this, and I do see it as being a God of the Gaps argument, but isn't really worth arguing against and I have no problem with people believing it. Its why you rarely find me in arguments with Deists.And I think you might be talking about the Anthropic Principle, the argument that everything is the way it is because if it wasn't, we wouldn't be here to see it. But I think you may be talking about something else. Originally Posted By: LuvMyCats Originally Posted By: bobWhere does Evo/NS fail? I must agree with thor. Even in the works of Charles Darwin, natural selection or evolution has never been proved/substantiated to a reasonable degree. But I like your spin too, Bob. A lot of the counter points you guys [bob, thor mostly] is pretty much my whole belief system. Evolution by Natural Selection is the basis of modern biology, its supported by Phylogenetics, Molecular and Anatomical Vestiges, Parahomology, extensive fossil records, Protein and DNA functional redundancy, Past and Present Biogeography, etc... Its one of the strongest theories in existence. Charles Darwin wasn't perfect, he didn't have a clue about DNA and what it has unlocked for his theory. He did make mistakes and any that we have found have been corrected in the modern theory. We don't treat him as a messiah or holy figure, he was wrong in certain cases and we have corrected his work. After all, we've had an extra 150 years to study it.To say that Evolution by Natural Selection has never been proven 100% is completely accurate, but I ask for a single theory that has been. I ask anyone to refuse to go to a hospital for any procedure that has been created as a result of the theory, if they doubt it so much.

That looks like an indication of just plain poor English.

It's at least an indication that poor English, and heavily condensed English, is nothing new.

The brain isn’t a flawless piece of machinery. Although it is powerful and comes in an easy to carry container, it has it’s weaknesses. A field in psychology which studies these errors, known as biases. Although you can’t upgrade your mental hardware, noticing these biases can clue you into possible mistakes.How Bias Hurts YouIf you were in a canoe, you’d probably want to know about any holes in the boat before you start paddling. Biases can be holes in your reasoning abilities and they can impair your decision making.Simply noticing these holes isn’t enough; a canoe will fill with water whether you are aware of a hole or not. But by being aware of the holes you can devise methods to patch them up. The entire domain of the scientific method has largely been an effort to overcome the natural inclination towards bias in reasoning.Biases hurt you in a number of areas: * Decision making. A number of biases can distort decision making. The confirmation bias can lead you to discount information that opposes existing theories. Anchoring can throw off negotiations by forcing you to sit around an arbitrary value. * Problem solving. Biases can impede your creativity when solving problems. A framing bias can cause you to look at a problem too narrowly. And the illusion of control can cause you to overestimate the amount your actions influence results. * Learning. Thinking errors also impact how you learn. The Von Restorff effect can cause you to overemphasize some information compared to the whole. Clustering illusions can also trick you into thinking you’ve learned more than you actually have.Here are some common thinking errors:1) Confirmation BiasThe confirmation bias is a tendency to seek information to prove, rather than disprove our theories. The problem arises because often, one piece of false evidence can completely invalidate the otherwise supporting factors.Consider a study conducted by Peter Cathcart Wason. In the study, Wason showed participants a triplet of numbers (2, 4, 6) and asked them to guess the rule for which the pattern followed. From that, participants could offer test triplets to see if their rule held.From this starting point, most participants picked specific rules such as “goes up by 2“ or “1x, 2x, 3x.” By only guessing triplets that fit their rule, they didn’t realize the actual rule was “any three ascending numbers.” A simple test triplet of “3, 15, 317“ would have invalidated their theories.2) Hindsight BiasKnown more commonly under “hindsight is 20/20“ this bias causes people to see past results as appearing more probable than they did initially. This was demonstrated in a study by Paul Lazarsfeld in which he gave participants statements that seemed like common sense. In reality, the opposite of the statements was true.3) Clustering IllusionThis is the tendency to see patterns where none actually exist. A study conducted by Thomas Gilovich, showed people were easily misled to think patterns existed in random sequences. Although this may be a necessary by product of our ability to detect patterns, it can create problems.The clustering illusion can result in superstitions and falling for pseudoscience when patterns seem to emerge from entirely random events.4) Recency EffectThe recency effect is the tendency to give more weight to recent data. Studies have shown participants can more easily remember information at the end of a list than from the middle. The existence of this bias makes it important to gather enough long-term data, so daily up’s and down’s don’t lead to bad decisions.5) Anchoring BiasAnchoring is a well-known problem with negotiations. The first person to state a number will usually force the other person to give a new number based on the first. Anchoring happens even when the number is completely random. In one study, participants spun a wheel that either pointed to 15 or 65. They were then asked the number of countries in Africa that belonged to the UN. Even though the number was arbitrary, answers tended to cluster around either 15 or 65.6) Overconfidence EffectAnd you were worried about having too little confidence? Studies have shown that people tend to grossly overestimate their abilities and characteristics from where they should. More than 80% of drivers place themselves in the top 30%.One study asked participants to answer a difficult question with a range of values to which they were 95% certain the actual answer lay. Despite the fact there was no penalty for extreme uncertainty, less than half of the answers lay within the original margin.7) Fundamental Attribution ErrorMistaking personality and character traits for differences caused by situations. A classic study demonstrating this had participants rate speakers who were speaking for or against Fidel Castro. Even if the participants were told the position of the speaker was determined by a coin toss, they rated the attitudes of the speaker as being closer to the side they were forced to speak on.Studies have shown that it is difficult to out-think these cognitive biases. Even when participants in different studies were warned about bias beforehand, this had little impact on their ability to see past them.What an understanding of biases can do is allow you to design decision making methods and procedures so that biases can be circumvented. Researchers use double-blind studies to prevent bias from contaminating results. Making adjustments to your decision making, problem solving and learning patterns you can try to reduce their effects.~Scott H Young

Originally Posted By: RadSo I presume you two think we speak exactly the same now as they did then and all English speaking countries continue to speak exactly the same?At least, your comments would indicate that. Not saying that at all. I'm saying that example is not a good indicator of the spoken language at that time.

I am a bit behind the discussion, but I prefer to go to teh beginning and read forward, responding as I go, if this has been brought up, I apologize...Thor, you are not nearly as intelligent as I gave you credit for, despite all the bullshit you hold to be truth, you must of missed a day of science class.Dominant and recessive.One or several individuals develope a "mutation" that mutation isa recessive gene. they pass it on for countless generations, then that gene meets another ogene of the same type from another individual, untold generations from the original 2 carriers. that gene now is shown. If its dominant, it shows earlier.Did you in grade school never have the whole discussion on eye color and how that works?This is only one suggestion.You claimed you know about radiation, did you ever really do any studies? Radiation in the correct levels are good for you!There is a place, I forget where it is, been a long long time since I dealt with that shit, but germany seems to be sticking out but can be totally wrong.anyways, it kills off the weakest cells first, and in the right doses does not damage healthy tissue that is not weakened.At this location, all the plants are giants of themselves, all the weakest cells killed off, the strongest grow into bigger and better plants.You do not know the history of the world, you do not know what forces were played on our planet over the last several million years, how can you say this did not happen and that its effects were carried through time to show up as things are now?Your dedication to an figment and slander of intelligent people who refuse to believe in a fairy tale like the bible amazes me, astounds me each time I visit the pages of A2A.Your attitude and refusal to consider possible outcomes besides what you were brainwashed with as a youth are why we are where we are today. Its why marijuana is illegal despite proven facts that support its use and safety and medical uses.You and your kind are part of the problem with humanity.I am happy to be standing on the edge of the downfall of god.While totally exasperating to watch you spin arguments in magic to defend your ideals, it is fun to watch some of the population wake up and spit out the regurgitated bullshit they have been fed for so long.When you die, and do not see god? tell her I said to blow me. I wil be in hell smoking a fat one.Since we are discussing fossils and early humans, where the fuck are the dinosaurs in the bible? Iv asked this a million times, I never get a real answer, we have proof they existed, we know they were real, the bible starts with creation and then adam and eve and where the fuck are the huge beasts that ruled this earth for millions of years before humans came along?We have fossil evidence of this, all we have to support your THEORY, is the bible, available in a hundred different languages, rife with contradictions, and magic and men that are 300 years old, men that were eaten by a whale and emerged later on whole and happy, a book thats been rewritten more times than any current episode of saturday night live thats the same rehashed shit since the late 70's, abook, written by man, about god, that people seem to take as truth.It amazes me, fucking astounds me, that so many can be led so easily. Now I got shit to do, time to scroll through the rest of this horseshit of a thread that started out as a link to an article about dating foot prints from early human kind and quickly developed in to the lump of shit you see before you now on the screen., after that I got to do an oil change and smoke a fucking bowl, being an atheist, maybe Ill kick some puppies and murder a few kittens while I go for a walk.

Much like bobbo, I give to you, a golf clap.

Texting DEvolves language.
Look at the shit, a few letters stuck together to mean something that was already written?
Fuck my 6 year old who wrote me a note the other night saying dad cum here, is better at english than the millions of texting teens destroying the language.

Originally Posted By: bobalicious Originally Posted By: thor Quote:Where does Natural Selection fail? It fails everything from the scientific ability to produce genetic special-varation to a complete void of supporting examples of its work.Nylon-Eating Bacteria I would argue (as many scientists would) that bacteria is not life.

What would you consider to be the requirements for calling something life, thor?

Originally Posted By: thorI would argue (as many scientists would) that bacteria is not life. I beg you to find "many scientists" that would not consider bacteria to be life. The definition of life is the characteristic of having self-sustaining biological processes. We fit the characteristic, so do all other animals, plants, fungi, viruses and bacteria. Our DNA, the part of us that is so crucial to living, is simply self-replicating molecules.If your only argument against Nylon-Eating Bacteria is that you don't consider Bacteria to be life, then I could argue against the entire Bible simply by saying that I don't consider it to be a book.

Originally Posted By: bobalicious Originally Posted By: thorI would argue (as many scientists would) that bacteria is not life. I beg you to find "many scientists" that would not consider bacteria to be life. The definition of life is the characteristic of having self-sustaining biological processes. We fit the characteristic, so do all other animals, plants, fungi, viruses and bacteria. Our DNA, the part of us that is so crucial to living, is simply self-replicating molecules.If your only argument against Nylon-Eating Bacteria is that you don't consider Bacteria to be life, then I could argue against the entire Bible simply by saying that I don't consider it to be a book. Sorry...my bad. I was thinking virus...not bacteria. Too much coffee and not enough sleep...good an excuse as any, I suppose.But that still doesn't mean much. So they changed their diets...so what? I'm certain seaguls didn't always scrounge at garbage dumps for food, but things change. Certainly some animals are better at adapting than others...and for some it's quite simple. But this is hardly evidence of the creation of another species...and there is certainly no evidence that natural selection is responsible for anything.If bacteria is all you've got after thousands of years of existance, I'd say you're reaching (as the saying goes). You want it to be true on the basis of what it means for your point of view on life, generally speaking...not because it's a scientifically viable solution to the question.Ineligible takes the same tac...the bit about recessive genes being passed on and such. It's possible...though it's much more likely such genes would disappear before mating with another with the same recessive gene and passing it onto their offspring. The odds are rediculous, and no true scientist would entertain such an idea...that's reserved for liberals and athiests who have no desire to see God as the creator of all things.