Evidences for Human Evolution Continue to be Discovered

[_Res Ipsa]

In terms of accepting evolution, what the hell would a macro guy be?

[_Philo Sofee]

http://blogs.plos.org/scicomm/2017/12/07/top-5-human-evolution-discoveries-of-2017/

5 more evidences enhancing our understanding of human evolution that came out in 2017. Our knowledge progresses.

Hey Kerry, sincere question here. Back in your believing days, was there a theory of evolution that you subscribed to...and with good reason? Or were you anti-evolution?

Were you a macro kind of guy? Micro? Both?

I'm wondering if the link you posted would have been troublesome to you in those days...or not.

by the way...OTHERS...would you please just let Kerry answer the question, if he chooses to...without barging in and accusing me of getting too personal...or whatever?

Thanks.

I'm asking an honest question that I'm curious about. No more. No less.

Regards,
MG

Being a Nibley fan and absorbing his anti-science/anti-Baconian attitude, I simply swooned to what he wrote for a while. But then I started reading Isaac Asimov's science writings and saw Nibley wasn't understanding things at all well. I then found Carl Sagan, and then Stephen J. Gould, Richard Dawkins, and others. I actually tried to reconcile it with what Mormonism was teaching, but found there is no clear or unified view of evolution from official sources either. Several Mormons who were evolutionists helped me through some of the tough problems (so I thought).

I never was an either micro or macro guy, just an all out once I realized the problematic approaches to it from Mormon writers. The regular member was truly uneducated and most didn't care either, but spouted some nonsense from Joseph Fielding Smith or Bruce R. McConkie.

I think it was just gradually through time of reading Darwin's own works and evolutionists per se that I realized the evidence points that way. But the capper was Robert T. Pennock, "Intelligent Design Creationism and It's Critics," for demonstrating with enormous materials why Creationism is just wrong. On top of that Jerry Coyne's masterful "Why Evolution is True," and Kenneth Miller "Only a Theory" and his other book "Finding Darwin's God" demonstrate beyond any reasonable doubt there was not an intelligent designer to our universe. Bill Nye's recent "Undeniable" is also spot on and very well explained. Evolution appears to have all the cards that matter so far as I can tell.

[_Philo Sofee]

For me, this was the most interesting item of the five listed in that article.

Basically, we don't any longer need bones to find that humans were in a given site, or to identify which group of our ancestors those humans (or at least hominids) came from. We can, in effect, treat each place where we suspect people may have lived using the same techniques nowadays used at crime scenes. DNA traces in the soil are enough - and of course those traces have to potential to tell us a lot more than a fragment of bone was able to tell us.

There's certainly more to come.

2) Ancient human DNA discovered in dirt

In a study led by Viviane Slon of the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig, Germany and published in the journal Science on May 12, 2017, a team of evolutionary geneticists found lots of ancient DNA from mammals in sediments from caves in Europe and Asia. This discovery was extra cool because it didn’t even involve finding fossils, or artifacts, or anything we usually associate with the past. Instead, researchers found ancient human DNA in… dirt! What?? While that sounds like something out of a science fiction novel, it really happened. The paleo-geneticists collaborated with several groups of archaeologists excavating in caves in Belgium, Croatia, France, Russia, and Spain with known early human occupation and collected 85 sediment samples from seven archaeological sites varying in age between about 14,000 and 550 thousand years ago. They found fragments of mitochondrial DNA from twelve different families of mammals in the sediments, including DNA from extinct animals like woolly mammoths, woolly rhinos, cave hyenas, and cave bears. Most exciting was the discovery of ancient human DNA in nine of those 85 samples from four of the sites: eight had Neanderthal DNA, and one had Denisovan DNA. In some cases, the researchers can even tell from the specific DNA sequences that they come from more than one individual! This discovery could be a real game-changer for human evolution research, as it allows us to identify the presence of hominins at prehistoric sites and in layers where their fossils haven’t even been found. For instance, this pushed back the known hominin (early human) occupation of Denisova Cave in Siberia by tens of thousands of years. It also demonstrates that it is possible to extract DNA from samples stored at room temperature for several years – like those collected previously for dating, understanding site formation processes, or reconstructing ancient environments.

Yes! That is a testament to the creativity and learning ability of humans who don't know, but they find a way to learn. I loved reading that also. It is bound to open up new vistas and change what we think we know already. Ever learning and constantly growing in knowledge and truth, St. Paul missed the point when he said ever learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth me thinks. The truth is in the journey, in being flexible enough to work within realistic probabilities and evidences and follow their lead. Paul's anti-intellectual approach is what turned me off to him years ago.

[_mentalgymnast]

The regular member was truly uneducated and most didn't care either, but spouted some nonsense from Joseph Fielding Smith or Bruce R. McConkie.

Aarrgh. I have to say that I'm right with you when it comes to looking the other way when these two speak of their restrictive and tunnel vision views in regards to creation/evolution.

Bill Nye's recent "Undeniable" is also spot on and very well explained. Evolution appears to have all the cards that matter so far as I can tell.

I've enjoyed his book. Some here may doubt that I have the book...but it's sitting on the desk right next to me. Even more, when I was teaching I was grateful for his series of Bill Nye the Science Guy videos.

Thanks for sharing, Philo.

Regards,
MG

[_Philo Sofee]

The regular member was truly uneducated and most didn't care either, but spouted some nonsense from Joseph Fielding Smith or Bruce R. McConkie.

Aarrgh. I have to say that I'm right with you when it comes to looking the other way when these two speak of their restrictive and tunnel vision views in regards to creation/evolution.

Bill Nye's recent "Undeniable" is also spot on and very well explained. Evolution appears to have all the cards that matter so far as I can tell.

I've enjoyed his book. Some here may doubt that I have the book...but it's sitting on the desk right next to me. Even more, when I was teaching I was grateful for his series of Bill Nye the Science Guy videos.

Thanks for sharing, Philo.

Regards,
MG

Thanks for asking MG........

[_Ceeboo]

Hey Philo!

I realize that I wasn't invited to the discussion between you and MG - But I wanted to make a short contribution to the discussion - I hope that's okay.

demonstrating with enormous materials why Creationism is just wrong.

'Creationism' comes in many flavors. In the most simple form, 'creationism' simply means that one has a belief in a Creator. There are literally millions upon millions of people who believe in a 'Creator' AND simultaneously fully believe in and accept Darwinian evolution.

Young Earth Creationists (YEC's) do not believe in any part of the Darwinian evolution position and in fact believe in a literal reading of the Bible (starting with Genesis 1) - thus taking the position that the earth is approximately 10,000 years old - in addition to other positions.

Just wanted to make that distinction for the purposes of this discussion.......if nothing else.

Peace,
Ceeboo

[_Ceeboo]

Thanks for sharing, Philo.

Thanks for asking MG........

That exchange was very nice to read.

Peace,
Ceeboo

[_Kevin Graham]

In the most simple form, 'creationism' simply means that one has a belief in a Creator. There are literally millions upon millions of people who believe in a 'Creator' AND simultaneously fully believe in and accept Darwinian evolution.

That's me. I believe in a creator and its name is Gravity. Without it, no life would exist.

Young Earth Creationists (YEC's) do not believe in any part of the Darwinian evolution position and in fact believe in a literal reading of the Bible (starting with Genesis 1) - thus taking the position that the earth is approximately 10,000 years old - in addition to other positions.

How can it be thousands of years older than the Babylonian Myths from which it is based?

[_EAllusion]

In terms of accepting evolution, what the hell would a macro guy be?

In the context of creationist jargon, it means someone who accepts evolutionary theory. It means believing that biodiversity above some arbitrary level of change, usually species or the creationist concept of "kinds," is the result of descent with modification.

In the context of the scientific meaning of those terms it is gibberish.

[_Ceeboo]

How can it be thousands of years older than the Babylonian Myths from which it is based?

I stand corrected - My mistake.

The YEC position is that the earth is approximately 6,000 years old (not 10,000)