Reply With Quote
ill watch this and curb your enthusiasm tonight
Disclaimer:
If this offends you, quite frankly I don't give a . Grow up, evolution and creationism aren't the same topic and very compatible. It's your religion that is the problem.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/10/ar...on/10ardi.htmlYou have to feel bad for Lucy, who this week proved that old axiom: no matter how big a star you are, there’s always a million-year-older woman waiting to push you offstage.
Skip to next paragraph
Jay H. Matternes
Lucy had a good run — about 35 years — as the world’s most famous fossil, but now it’s Ardi’s turn. The new hominid on the block, who at 4.4 million years old can spot Lucy a million years and still have a couple hundred thousand to spare, was introduced to the scientific world last week in a blizzard of scholarly and newspaper articles. Her popular-culture debut comes on Sunday night with “Discovering Ardi,” a two-hour do entary on the Discovery Channel.
Despite how quickly the film follows on the official unveiling of Ardi (short for Ardipithecus ramidus), it’s not a rush job. The first fragments of the new creature’s bones were found in the early 1990s, and the television production company Primary Pictures began do enting the research team’s progress in 1999. For 10 years, filming took place at dig sites in Ethiopia; in laboratories in Tokyo and Berkeley, Calif.; in artists’ studios and on motion-capture stages.
This means that “Discovering Ardi” has an awful lot of material to choose from, and at times the viewer may feel a case of information overload coming on. It’s as if years of pent-up nerdy excitement were spilling onto the screen, with at least six scientists talking about their own roles in what’s known as the Middle Awash research project.
The film alternates between two primary story lines. The more immediately appealing and visually interesting is its account of the project’s years of labor. This includes the excavations at various sites near the Awash River, digging through hills and gullies with small tools that look like what a dentist uses to clean teeth, and the additional years of laboratory work to reconstruct what Ardi looked like and how she moved.
(Why “she”? Because the relatively complete skeleton of an individual Ardipithecus that was eventually assembled, and then modeled through years of CT scanning and artists’ renderings, was female.)
Among the interesting lessons here are the reasons it’s so difficult to find bones of our oldest ancestors (who all lived in Africa). Even the earliest hominids were smart enough to avoid dying in the open and being trapped in sediment. Those that did were likely to be torn apart by hyenas.
The more important, if less television-friendly, aspect of the film is its explication of the big ideas: what Ardi tells us about ourselves and our early evolution. (Among her other accomplishments, she has buttressed the notion of evolution itself.)
The fact that Ardi was bipedal a million years before Lucy is crucial evidence in a debate over why, among all the world’s creatures, humans are the only ones to move primarily by walking on two legs. A long segment of the film is devoted to a theory — involving bipedality and the surprisingly small canine teeth of male Ardipithecines — that females came to prefer beta males who cared for them rather than fought over them and who, most crucially, could walk for long distances while also carrying food. Today’s sensitive, grocery-toting men may not find it entirely convincing.
Toward the end the film is marred by some self-promotional business in which “Discovery Channel filmmakers” help the researchers by hooking them up with a company that specializes in motion-capture technology. This means that a small stuntwoman is coached by a paleontologist — the one with the beta-male theory — on how Ardi might have moved, harnessed to a bunch of sensors and filmed while climbing a rope. To the nonscientist, this looks like sheer hokum.
At the end of the film we’re told that even older bone fragments have since been found near the Awash. At 5.7 million years, they’re approaching the age of the theoretical common ancestor from which we and the apes both descended. Presumably, a new animal will emerge, in her own blaze of publicity, after some more years of scraping, scanning and theorizing. Ardi had better enjoy the throne while she can.
Discovering Ardi
Discovery Channel, Sunday night at 9, Eastern and Pacific times; 8, Central time.
Produced for the Discovery Channel by Primary Pictures. Rod Paul, executive producer; Paul Gasek, executive producer for the Discovery Channel; Mike Rowe, narrator.
ill watch this and curb your enthusiasm tonight
So if I tell everyone the 10 Commandments are coming on I am not plugging my beliefs on others?
Your plugging your religion the only difference is your religion just worships Bones and Fossils.
Dejauntoblair, you're is getting old.
should be good.
Bull , Lanny.
Religions are based on FAITH. Science is based on OBSERVATION of the universe. Quite a difference there, mate. The theory of evolution is based on huge swathes of PHYSICAL EVIDENCE gathered by scientists over the last couple of hundred years. I believe in the physical evidence because I can SEE IT.
What observation? No one has ever observed evolution occur. Just because many scientists assume it must happen and base "huge swathes" of their research on its assumed principles doesn't mean there's any "physical evidence" oncesoever.
What physical evidence for macroevolution have you seen, exactly? These Discovery promos don't count - read up about how most well-regarded journals and peer review have absolutely destroyed many exaggerations and outright lies about "Ida" since her unveiling.
"No one has ever observed evolution occur"
You Lie.
A hot area in molecular biology is epigenetics, or how environment (and even What You Eat) affects gene expression and then gene transmission. eg, obese women have been shown to damage the genes of their fetuses permanently, etc. iow, in one generation, gene can be permanently changed.
A famous Russian experimenter produced domesticated wolves in only 60 generations by (unnaturally) selecting and breeding the shy, passive wolves of each brood.
There is so much data supporting evolution that you Bible-thumping creationists don't have a leg to stand on (but you might evolve one if you wait long enough).
I'm interested. Link me up to the articles from these "most well-regarded journals" so I can see what they have to say.
Macro vs Micro aside there is a lot more information about the idea of evolution even on a minimal scale compared to the myths and legends of Jesus Christ and modern day religions. One being based on research and findings the other based on hearsay and faith. Its always been about the religious ideas in comparison to a more natural explanation. Because the two have to fight. Just because I conclude and argue against your organized religious view of how the universe and world were created doesn't give you the ability to instantaneously disregard significant scientific findings as a counter argument.
Because
I'll be the first to admit that no evidence even on a macro scale would completely discount the idea that a higher power could exist. My argument has always been that if there was a higher power he/she/it is certainly not like anything we've been taught to believe. There will always be a possibility that something this grand was created and even if it turned out to be a random act of biology you people would still call it a biological creation. Your out is impervious.
The real problem is that you ignore those significant findings due to the fact that you're too busy arguing for your modern day religion. You're ignoring reality (whatever it is) to defend a faith based belief. I've never understood why you can't acknowledge some of the most important historical findings for what they are. You still hold your trump card of "higher power created it" so why not come to terms with the fact that your little view or world isn't perfect. That your God may have built it a different way. Surely you understand that even your religion has evolved to a certain degree. You wouldn't have to abandon your faith to do such either. Modern day religion has changed tunes a thousand times (sup the world is flat and I won't hear otherwise). Perhaps its time for another. In the end why not concentrate on the tangible stuff instead of immediately attempting to find ways to bury breakthrough findings under the rug because it doesn't match what you currently buy. You thumpers were able to evolve your beliefs around many many many significant findings. Why so incapable now?
Did we run him? I was hoping for a link or two or five.
http://www.scienceagainstevolution.org/v13i9n.htm
ida is just another in a long line of fakes and exaggerations regarding human evolution - mostly due to the media, this time around. Ardi will be no different.
And don't ask for more links - citations are in that article for several sources. No doubt many others either did not cover the issue, or did it only fleetingly because they don't want to look like idiots for advocating non-scientific presumptions.
Last edited by z0sa; 10-12-2009 at 12:13 PM.
You completely missed my point.
I'll indulge anyway. There were two reputable quotes both slanted to the views of an obviously biased opinion. Even though I wasn't specifically trying to debate the sources and the findings I think you should investigate beyond a website like what you linked.
Give me an example of a significant historically changing discovery that contradicted your beliefs but were eventually founded to be true. Are you even willing to admit that things can change with new findings. Or is everything that's contradictory to your religion just hooey.
Just another b2b rant is all i saw.
But you specifically made a post essentially saying the opposite by asking for links again. Nothing like changing your story to fit whatever you needEven though I wasn't specifically trying to debate the sources
and the findings I think you should investigate beyond a website like what you linked.
First, you assume this is the only website I have "investigated." It's not. Second, they didn't slant anything remarks, but nice deflection from the obvious fact that other than being well-preserved, Ida means absolutely nothing despite the hype. Sorry you buy anything that goes along with your viewpoint while shedding opposing perspectives without even a glance.
Besides, where am I supposed to get my information from? Where can I without you or one of your friends disregarding the information simply because its from a source that doesn't support your perspective? You're truly a hypocrite. I'm sure you would gladly link a hundred pro-evolution "mainstream" science sites and refer to their sometimes ridiculous banter as hard fact, and if I disapproved you'd call me a fool and a simpleton and ignorant and everything else in the book. that.
WhyGive me an example of a significant historically changing discovery that contradicted your beliefs but were eventually founded to be true.
What exactly is my religion, do you know?Are you even willing to admit that things can change with new findings. Or is everything that's contradictory to your religion just hooey.
I can't get into this. I believe what I believe, you can believe what you want including my beliefs are wrong and/or stupid. I won't hold it against you.
Just another b2b rant is all i saw.
Its obvious that you're not one to look objectively at things. You assumed it was a rant when all I did was question your motives by asking you to list or give an example of something historical that changed what we know but didn't coincide with the beliefs of modern day religion.
But you specifically made a post essentially saying the opposite by asking for links again. Nothing like changing your story to fit whatever you need
Forget the story then. I thought the link was flimsy so I jumped on it. Still wasn't the main focus of my point.
First, you assume this is the only website I have "investigated." It's not. Second, they didn't slant anything remarks, but nice deflection from the obvious fact that other than being well-preserved, Ida means absolutely nothing despite the hype. Sorry you buy anything that goes along with your viewpoint while shedding opposing perspectives without even a glance.
Besides, where am I supposed to get my information from? Where can I without you or one of your friends disregarding the information simply because its from a source that doesn't support your perspective? You're truly a hypocrite. I'm sure you would gladly link a hundred pro-evolution "mainstream" science sites and refer to their sometimes ridiculous banter as hard fact, and if I disapproved you'd call me a fool and a simpleton and ignorant and everything else in the book. that.
I don't give a about Ida or Lucy or any of it. You assume that I believe everything I read. You assumed that I'm on the bandwagon. I never said that what is being reported (even on your linked site) should be taken as stone cold fact. I only pointed out that you linked me up to a site with a sole purpose of being anti-science when it doesn't coincide with modern day religious ways of thinking. They took snippets out of context as supportive quotes. I think that's ty journalism. I still never made an argument for against the articles point.
I'll point out again that I don't support one side of what the remains are over another. I'm willing to listen. I'll say it again I'm willing to listen. My point was that you spend more time and energy dismissing findings than actually wondering what significance they might hold. You probably didn't look around a whole bunch. You just searched for articles or points that fit the mold of the way you think. Did you google "debunk ida" or ardi or lucy or whatever.
Why
Like I said above.
Because I think you spend more time trying to dismiss things than actually looking a them with an objective eye. You go right into blasting the finding because it doesn't merge with your views. That's being a simpleton.
I'm giving you an opportunity to show me that you're fair and partial and willing to be open to historical findings whether they agree with your faith or not.
What exactly is my religion, do you know?
Don't care. Its obviously one that is -bent on preaching against modern day findings and any potential significant value that might lend credibility to the idea of some kind of evolution.
that red is hard to look at. Sorry.
My motives? I have none. I just don't agree that evolution has been observed. I don't agree that creating domesticated wolves is any type of evolution. I don't think that destroying/changing your genes through obesity is any type of (evolution) - and in that vein, don't see how nature could ever write something as fantastically encrypted as DNA, or how it would continue expanding on it throughout time til today and beyond without any natural mechanism which to do so with.
I don't see it, but you do. And that's fine, really, it is. Maybe the earth is really old, and maybe there is no god or he's a god who just hit the ignition switch and that's it. I don't have any more answers than the next guy and never will. That's the funny thing: no human really knows, do they? it's all about faith, or a lack thereof. And we're all in this together even if we don't want to be.
Last edited by z0sa; 10-12-2009 at 03:31 PM.
Do you ing read? I never said that this was magically scripted by the randomness of mother nature. What I am saying for the third ing time is that you simply ignore significant findings that may lead down a different path of answers because its contradictory to your religious belief structure.
You're refusing to believe in evolution because somewhere along the lines it became the opposite of religious beliefs instead of thinking about the potentials of a higher power creating evolution as science unfolds the findings.
Can it not be possible that a divine power allowed for a split in development of ape and man with some unfounded common ground somewhere in the history of time. Why does it have to be about fighting scientific evolution or better yet why is it a threat. Why not look for the answers of how it was all created without abandoning the belief that its possible that there is a creator.
This evolution vs. modern day religion battle is a battle that shouldn't be fought. Its as if you all sat around and said "no more, we know how it all went down so just stop the research".
Evolution can fit in with your faith in a higher power. Can it not?
Where did I specify what my religion is, if indeed I do possess one? And how are you so sure those constraints, if they do exist, would somehow stop me from seeing what you might consider plain as day fact?
The problem lies with evolution itself, not my beliefs should they even exist. And this is it. I won't be responding to these topics anymore, regardless of my feelings, because of responses like that ^. I mean, you put words in my mouth and insult me yet apparently expect a rational, well thought out post in return and no linking any sites that support my viewpoint.
And that's discounting the god-awful red that permanently burned my retinas.
Quite being a ing pussy okay. I never put words in your mouth. I hardly think I've attacked you.
Are you an agnostic or atheist that doesn't believe in evolution?
Am I wrong by assuming that your anti-evolution stance isn't based in modern day religious beliefs?
I never said I support evolution full fledged. If anyone is guilty of putting words in someones mouth its you. You've assumed that I have a stance on this. You assume that I'm all for evolution when in reality I'm all for trying learn more about how it all came about. I'm willing to acknowledge new scientific findings without calling them frauds or fakes. I'm curious. You seem to think nothing of these findings and by your posts you think its nothing more than misinformation with little to no purpose or significant value.
I simply pointed out the fact that you shouldn't immediately disregard historical findings because you feel they threaten your religious stance because in the end it might all fit together.
Check out B2B all high and mighty putting his words in red
A man can wake up one day and go red on whim. Its not gay okay.Check out B2B all high and mighty putting his words in red
Even the ones that worship the Sun?
Are you saying Evolution is not a theory? holy !! it's a fact? You should tell some people Ruff!! Tell them about your discovery I am sure the atheist of this world would love to know FluffAndNotReadyOzStale has finally confirmed Darwin's ideas! in fact you may be the next new Darwin, I think I shall call you.... mini Darwin!. Why would anyone with this information not share it with others? How can you keep this earth breaking news to yourself? your much to modest brah! I know I couldn't do it, I would want to be famous! you really have discipline and I envy that in a person!Science is based on OBSERVATION of the universe. Quite a difference there, mate. The theory of evolution is based on huge swathes of PHYSICAL EVIDENCE gathered by scientists over the last couple of hundred years.
So I take it you don't believe in air?I believe in the physical evidence because I can SEE IT.
show some. There is also so much that supports Intelligent design all you have to do is look in the mirror, or maybe not in your case.
Why is it anyone who doesn't believe in your banana eating theories is a bible thumper? I can make my point w/o the bible. And I am sure their are others out there that don't read the bible that still don't think we evolved from snails like you do.that you Bible-thumping creationists don't have a leg to stand on
That seems to be the Atheist creed you all follow it takes "Billions of years"(but you might evolve one if you wait long enough).
for this or that to happen. Why not use trillions of years? I'm sure if you took a and waited long enough it may grow legs and , who knows may even some day post in the Club, I see it happen everyday.
evolution is fact. the problem comes with where the first cell came from.
the problem with explaining evolution comes with having to explain biology. in the last 30 years biology has been the new frontier and forefront of scientific discovery. DNA and cellular biology is absolutely fascinating - breathtakingly elegant and complex. when you understand it all its quite evident that evolution is 99.99999999999% probable, especially after observing fully sequenced genomes of species.
this ultimately fills in a lot of gaps, but not the biggest one, the origin of life and the purpose of it. that gap is still free to fill in whichever way you choose
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
