Evidence for God from Science

ageofknowledge wrote: The final explanation was that scarce dietary resources required an efficient means of travel. In the late Miocene, hominid dietary resources become thinly dispersed in some areas, requiring possible extensive travel to exploit those resources. Why energy-consuming bipedalism, as opposed to quadrupedalism, would be chosen as the means of travel, remains a question.

You're assuming that hominids are bipedal due to it being the best means of travel. It could be the case (well, it evidently is the case) that other benefits of bipedalism outweigh the extra energy it takes to move around in that manner - after all we haven't reverted to knuckle walking in an attempt to reduce our shopping bills!
I'm a little confused though - are you asserting that bipedalism couldn't have evolved, or couldn't have come about gradually, or have I missed your point totally?

Ageofknowledge Said

The prevailing evolutionary theory to account for the appearance of bipedalism is that the habitat of the hominids changed from woodland to open savanna. Under these conditions, erect posture would be helpful in detecting predators and maintaining body temperature. However, with recent studies pushing bipedalism back to at least 4 million years, the woodland habitat does not provide the proper driving force to select for the appearance of a bipedal stance.

Chimpanzees have shown relatively advanced forms of bipedalism , and not many chimpanzees are found in open plains.

Bipedalism uses twice the energy as mammalian quadrupedalism. Therefore, one would expect to find a fairly robust theory to explain why hominids opted to use so much energy to get around.

Once again you seem to be assuming that they 'opted' to do something all of a sudden. As I said before it was a gradual process. The likes of Ardipithecus Ramidus a species that lived in a wooded envroment showed developments of bipedalism, gradually as hominoids moved away from wooded areas, the bipedeal traits evolved more, i.e. natural selection.

Most evolutionary theories constructed to account for the appearance of bipedalism have serious problems, since they rely upon the change from woodland to savanna habitat, which occurred after bipedalism arose. This eliminates the ecology, the thermoregulation, and the enhanced vision hypotheses. The original hunting hypothesis (proposed by Charles Darwin) has been invalidated, since the appearance of hunting tools were much later than the appearance of bipedalism.

Most scientists now believe that Bipedialism occurred DURING the change from woodland to savanna, so to say that it a serious problem is a bit if an exaggeration.

The male provider model states that monogamous males provided for pregnant/nursing mates and their offspring. All available evidence indicates that early hominids were polygynous and not monogamous and that male provisioning of immobile females and offspring was unlikely. No monogamous primate species is known to have a male who provides food for the female and her offspring. Even so, in hunter/gatherer societies, the average human female gathers an estimated 12,000 calories per day in food while the male averages only about 7,230 calories. So much for male provisioning!

You are right, and most scientists now reject the male provider theory, but I fail to see what it has to do with the conversation.

The final explanation was that scarce dietary resources required an efficient means of travel. In the late Miocene, hominid dietary resources become thinly dispersed in some areas, requiring possible extensive travel to exploit those resources. Why energy-consuming bipedalism, as opposed to quadrupedalism, would be chosen as the means of travel, remains a question.

You are right, it remains a question, a question that scientists are beginning to answer, but it certainly doesn't give more credence to 'Adam'.

Like I said, keep talking. It's entertaining.

Go on to an evolutionary forum and you would be the one that would be entertaining, so please lets keep this civil, and refrain from childishness.

Just look at him go... lol... with a little help from his human "brothers".

"The question of what genetic changes make us human is far more complex. Although the two genomes are very similar, there are about 35 million nucleotide differences, 5 million indels and many chromosomal rearrangements. Most of these changes will have no significant biological effect, so identification of the genomic differences underlying such characteristics of “humanness” as large cranial capacity, bipedalism and advanced brain development remains a daunting task" http://www.chem.arizona.edu/courseweb/0 ... d%20us.pdf

Bipedalism is not a simple anatomical adaptation, but involves changes to most of the skeletal system. Humans have a shorter, broader pelvis than apes. The human femur (upper leg bone) forms an angles of less than 90° with the knee, whereas in the ape, the angle is nearly 90°. The human knee has the ability to be fully extended, whereas the ape knee cannot do so. The lower leg bones are longer in the human compared to apes. In addition, joint surfaces are enlarged in humans to compensate for the added stress of bipedal locomotion.

Bipedalism requires adjustments to the inner ear, since bipedal animals must be able to balance on two legs. There are major changes in the feet, which include a reduction in the size of the toes, a non-opposable hallux (big toe), which is relocated in line with the other toes, and the formation of an foot arch (as opposed to flat feet). The redesigned foot forms a platform to be able to support the entire weight of the body.

Bipedalism requires significant changes to the thoracic skeletal system. The foramen magnum must be relocated from the back of the skull to the base of the skull since the skull must be perpendicular to the spinal column. The upper and lower spine of bipedal creatures must be curved to absorb the shock of the bipedal gate. In contrast, the spine of apes is nearly straight. In addition, the rib cage of bipeds is barrel shaped, in contrast to the inverted V-shape of the apes. The muscles that attach to these bones must be restructured to accommodate the skeletal changes.

Bipedalism seems to have arisen at a time and place where there was little or no ecological or environmental pressure to have selected for its evolution. Bipedalism appeared suddenly in the fossil record over 5 million years ago. The adaptations necessary to achieve bipedalism are remarkably extensive, and many of the evolutionary models do not provide a mechanism by which intermediates would be selectively advantaged.

And I'm here reading an evolutionist insisting new species can appear in a mere 10,000 years?

Yeah right.

limerick wrote:They are not claiming it to be a smoking gun for evolution, as far as they are concerned evolution is fact, this just helps them further in understanding how hominoids evolved.

Not true.. They are claiming that "Ardi is clearly a human ancestor and her descendants did not grow up to be chimpanzees or other apes, the researchers report in the journal Science.."

And for the record macro-evolution is not a fact.. It's a religious philosophy.

touchingcloth wrote:Well, not. Not if Ardi was the single best preserved individual, but it was clear that other individuals were of the same species. It's not like they would have found, say, and elephant's rib cage and thought "yep, that'll do.".

Other species of what? How do we know what species it was? It could have been a mess of bones (stew) of anything...

Gman wrote:

touchingcloth wrote:Well, not. Not if Ardi was the single best preserved individual, but it was clear that other individuals were of the same species. It's not like they would have found, say, and elephant's rib cage and thought "yep, that'll do.".

Other species of what? How do we know what species it was? It could have been a mess of bones (stew) of anything...

You could have stew of, say, orangutan and bonobo bones all mushed together and it would still be possible via a forensic analysis - albeit a painstaking one - to work out which bones came from which critter.

Just look at him go... lol... with a little help from his human "brothers".

Not brother, distant cousin.

The question of what genetic changes make us human is far more complex. Although the two genomes are very similar, there are about 35 million nucleotide differences, 5 million indels and many chromosomal rearrangements. Most of these changes will have no significant biological effect, so identification of the genomic differences underlying such characteristics of “humanness” as large cranial capacity, bipedalism and advanced brain development remains a daunting task" http://www.chem.arizona.edu/courseweb/0 ... d%20us.pdf

Bipedalism is not a simple anatomical adaptation, but involves changes to most of the skeletal system. Humans have a shorter, broader pelvis than apes. The human femur (upper leg bone) forms an angles of less than 90° with the knee, whereas in the ape, the angle is nearly 90°. The human knee has the ability to be fully extended, whereas the ape knee cannot do so. The lower leg bones are longer in the human compared to apes. In addition, joint surfaces are enlarged in humans to compensate for the added stress of bipedal locomotion.

Bipedalism requires adjustments to the inner ear, since bipedal animals must be able to balance on two legs. There are major changes in the feet, which include a reduction in the size of the toes, a non-opposable hallux (big toe), which is relocated in line with the other toes, and the formation of an foot arch (as opposed to flat feet). The redesigned foot forms a platform to be able to support the entire weight of the body.

Bipedalism requires significant changes to the thoracic skeletal system. The foramen magnum must be relocated from the back of the skull to the base of the skull since the skull must be perpendicular to the spinal column. The upper and lower spine of bipedal creatures must be curved to absorb the shock of the bipedal gate. In contrast, the spine of apes is nearly straight. In addition, the rib cage of bipeds is barrel shaped, in contrast to the inverted V-shape of the apes. The muscles that attach to these bones must be restructured to accommodate the skeletal changes.

You are right all this is required.........for us.

Bipedalism seems to have arisen at a time and place where there was little or no ecological or environmental pressure to have selected for its evolution. Bipedalism appeared suddenly in the fossil record over 5 million years ago. The adaptations necessary to achieve bipedalism are remarkably extensive, and many of the evolutionary models do not provide a mechanism by which intermediates would be selectively advantaged.

You see this statement is fundamentally flawed, the traits you mentioned previously are of a fully adapted and evolved bipedal creature (e.g. us), 4 million years ago, the likes of Australopithecus afarensis (Lucy) would not yet have evolved to such a high degree of bipedalism like you just mentioned.

limerick wrote:

Bipedalism seems to have arisen at a time and place where there was little or no ecological or environmental pressure to have selected for its evolution. Bipedalism appeared suddenly in the fossil record over 5 million years ago. The adaptations necessary to achieve bipedalism are remarkably extensive, and many of the evolutionary models do not provide a mechanism by which intermediates would be selectively advantaged.

You see this statement is fundamentally flawed, the traits you mentioned previously are of a fully adapted and evolved bipedal creature (e.g. us), 4 million years ago, the likes of Australopithecus afarensis (Lucy) would not yet have evolved to such a high degree of bipedalism like you just mentioned.

Fully adapted? Us?
I've heard human locomotion described as a process in which we alternately almost fall on our faces.

Gman wrote:

limerick wrote:They are not claiming it to be a smoking gun for evolution, as far as they are concerned evolution is fact, this just helps them further in understanding how hominoids evolved.

Not true.. They are claiming that "Ardi is clearly a human ancestor and her descendants did not grow up to be chimpanzees or other apes, the researchers report in the journal Science.."

And for the record macro-evolution is not a fact.. It's a religious philosophy.

We don't know for sure if is an ancestor, I don't know where you got that source from (I'm not calling you a liar, I do believe you got it from a legitimate source), scientists are undecided whether it is a direct ancestor, or if it diverged like Homo Sapien and the Neanthertal did for example.

I like to call it fact like most scientist's do, as there is pretty solid evidence for it. Saying its only a theory is like saying the Roman Empire is just a theory because no one alive ever witnessed it. It's not considered a religion in Europe, not sure in the USA, but again we will have to agree to disagree on those matters.

touchingcloth wrote:

limerick wrote:

Bipedalism seems to have arisen at a time and place where there was little or no ecological or environmental pressure to have selected for its evolution. Bipedalism appeared suddenly in the fossil record over 5 million years ago. The adaptations necessary to achieve bipedalism are remarkably extensive, and many of the evolutionary models do not provide a mechanism by which intermediates would be selectively advantaged.

You see this statement is fundamentally flawed, the traits you mentioned previously are of a fully adapted and evolved bipedal creature (e.g. us), 4 million years ago, the likes of Australopithecus afarensis (Lucy) would not yet have evolved to such a high degree of bipedalism like you just mentioned.

Fully adapted? Us?
I've heard human locomotion described as a process in which we alternately almost fall on our faces.

Tha was in relation o what ageofknowledge described, but I think you catch my drift.

limerick wrote:We don't know for sure if is an ancestor, I don't know where you got that source from (I'm not calling you a liar, I do believe you got it from a legitimate source), scientists are undecided whether it is a direct ancestor, or if it diverged like Homo Sapien and the Neanthertal did for example.

Would you call National Geographic a liar?

Scientists today announced the discovery of the oldest fossil skeleton of a human ancestor.

limerick wrote:I like to call it fact like most scientist's do, as there is pretty solid evidence for it. Saying its only a theory is like saying the Roman Empire is just a theory because no one alive ever witnessed it. It's not considered a religion in Europe, not sure in the USA, but again we will have to agree to disagree on those matters.

Darwinian evolution is a different kind of science, it's a historical science that claims what happened in the past. As an example comparing Darwinian evolution to gravity.. There is a categorical difference between evolutionary science and gravity.. Gravity can make simple predictions like the gravitational force between the earth and the moon. It's something that can be measured.. You can't take Darwinism and formulate it to an equation like F=MA the force of gravity. Dawinism is NOT a law, you can't measure it.. It's all just speculation… And if you believed that life arose by chance processes, you have to believe that millions of years ago life arouse from non-life, from matter, and this violates the law of biogeneis. No scientist has ever showed this law could ever be violated.

You can call chimps your cousins if you like and pretend we aren't much different at all. You can go work with chimps and get in their cages and roll around with them and try to teach them to evolve faster.

But you'll be deceived because chimps are animals sans-Imago Dei plain and simple and there is a GREAT difference between an animal and a human being made in the image of God.

Just for fun, here's an evolutionist that decided chimps were his cousins and wanted to get close to these animals. Look how that turned out.



Ouch! Those chimps are more like gangbangers than the happy modern liberal chimps in diapers we see on television.

ageofknowledge wrote:You can call chimps your cousins if you like and pretend we aren't much different at all. You can go work with chimps and get in their cages and roll around with them and try to teach them to evolve faster.

But you'll be deceived because chimps are animals sans-Imago Dei plain and simple and there is a GREAT difference between an animal and a human being made in the image of God.

Just for fun, here's an evolutionist that decided chimps were his cousins and wanted to get close to these animals. Look how that turned out.



Ouch! Those chimps are more like gangbangers than the happy modern liberal chimps in diapers we see on television.

I just find it disappointing that you had to resort to this tyoe of reply, instead of replying to my observations of your post. Anyway I'm done with you now.

Gman Said:

Would you call National Geographic a liar?

At no stage did I call National Geographic a liar. The following paragraph from the same NG story should clarify the matter:

"Announced at joint press conferences in Washington, D.C., and Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, the analysis of the Ardipithecus ramidus bones will be published in a collection of papers tomorrow in a special edition of the journal Science, along with an avalanche of supporting materials published online. "

I'm afraid NG were a bit premature in their observation that the species is an ancestor, as it says in the paragraph that the official report would be published the following day. Saying it was an ancestor was a mistake, not necessarilly a lie.

Darwinian evolution is a different kind of science, it's a historical science that claims what happened in the past. As an example comparing Darwinian evolution to gravity.. There is a categorical difference between evolutionary science and gravity.. Gravity can make simple predictions like the gravitational force between the earth and the moon. It's something that can be measured.. You can't take Darwinism and formulate it to an equation like F=MA the force of gravity. Dawinism is NOT a law, you can't measure it.. It's all just speculation… And if you believed that life arose by chance processes, you have to believe that millions of years ago life arouse from non-life, from matter, and this violates the law of biogeneis. No scientist has ever showed this law could ever be violated.

Look I've explained my stance on this issue, I do take it to be fact, an the reason that evolution cannot be measured is because no one can predict enviromental changes that will affect the process of natural selection. We don't know how life first began, but evolution never has tried to explain this. That's all I am saying on that matter.

limerick wrote:

ageofknowledge wrote:You can call chimps your cousins if you like and pretend we aren't much different at all. You can go work with chimps and get in their cages and roll around with them and try to teach them to evolve faster.

But you'll be deceived because chimps are animals sans-Imago Dei plain and simple and there is a GREAT difference between an animal and a human being made in the image of God.

Just for fun, here's an evolutionist that decided chimps were his cousins and wanted to get close to these animals. Look how that turned out.



Ouch! Those chimps are more like gangbangers than the happy modern liberal chimps in diapers we see on television.

I just find it disappointing that you had to resort to this tyoe of reply, instead of replying to my observations of your post. Anyway I'm done with you now.

I understand. You won't accept the truth of my comments. Here's some more. Chimps are well known aggressors in the wild, the discussion goes way beyond the materially notable biological differences between chimps and humans, evolution is a theory not a fact that is strangely practiced like a substitute religion by atheists, and what we actually know about bipedalism doesn't prove that man and chimps descended from a common anscestor.

In any event, you should not be quick to be offended by anything I have to say as my life and well being hang by a very thin thread that could snap at any time. If it does, I won't be posting here anymore. Honestly, you can rest in the knowledge that your life is better than mine and carry on. You can look at me like a piece of doo doo to wipe off the heel of your shoe if it makes you happy and it won't bother me in the least. What I'm trying to say is just enjoy the discussion. Now that you know how it is there is really no need to take anything I say personally.