A remarkable new discovery near Johannesburg, South Africa has come to light: the bones of two creatures that lived nearly 2 million years ago.
Scientists are trying to sort out whether they might have been direct ancestors of humans or an experiment in evolution that disappeared.
The partial skeletons belong to a juvenile about 9 to 13 years old and a female in her 20s. They were found in what once was a deep cave, where they probably died.
Scientists call them Australopithecus sediba — a new species. The famous fossil Lucy, found in 1974, was a different form of Australopithecus. Scientists suspect some form of this genus evolved into the very earliest humans, the Homo lineage.
[…]
Interesting. I’ll be watching this one to see where it goes. Maybe we’ll be greeted with yet another lemur (though, if lemurs start looking like THAT, we’re going to have a problem…).
"All of this massive cosmological churning and destruction (which is paralleled, by the way, on our own earth where 99% of all species that have ever existed have gone extinct) could be part of a plan. There is no way an atheist could prove it’s not. But it’s some plan, isn’t it? With mass destruction, pitiless extermination, annihilation going on all the time. And all of this set in motion on a scale that’s absolutely beyond our imagination…in order that the pope can tell people not to jerk off."
— Christopher Hitchens (via sixtyforty) (via friendlyatheist)
"I don’t think we’re here for anything; we’re just products of evolution. You can say, ‘Gee, your life must be pretty bleak if you don’t think there’s a purpose,’ but I’m anticipating a good lunch."
— Dr. James Watson, Co-discoverer of the structure of DNA (via Wallbase.net)
Video: Simulation Renders Entire Known Universe
It all just seems a bit presumptuous to think that out of everything we’ve observed, that somehow our species was divinely put here for some sort of intent. The number of other possible planets like ours, even though their existence is probably rather rare, must still be mind boggling.
Also, as an aside, videos and images that put into perspective how very tiny and insignificant we are make me want to call in sick to work tomorrow to go do something equally pointless yet far more enjoyable.
I’d rather be a rising ape than a fallen angel
<3 Terry Pratchett
I’d like to see a magazine cover like this : Pharyngula
Wow, The Onion’s on a roll today.
"When science and the Bible differ, science has obviously misinterpreted its data."
— Henry Morris, founder of Institute for Creation Research. (via godisnotgreat)(via Unreasonable Faith)
The part dealing with Charles Darwin’s biography is actually rather good – almost as if he’d plagiarised the work of someone else? Sure enough, Googling several key phrases from Comfort’s introduction proves beyond reasonable doubt that he had. Whole passages were lifted without attribution from Dr Stan Guffey’s work, A Brief History of Charles Darwin. For example:
Ray: During his great adventure as the Beagle’s naturalist, Darwin had studied certain aspects of the morphology and biogeography of the many species of plants and animals that he had observed. He eventually concluded that species exhibited varying degrees of similarity because they were to varying degrees related.
Stan: On his great adventure as the Beagle’s naturalist Darwin had noted and begun to ponder certain aspects of the morphology and biogeography of the many species of plants and animals that he had observed. In particular, he had begun to explore the possibility, and eventually concluded, that species exhibited varying degrees of similarity because they are to varying degrees related.
(via The Freethinker)
Dr. Stovold kindly rips apart Comfort with a short analysis and a very apt analogy. Good morning fun. Hit the link for more.
Hemant: The arguments you make in the introduction to the Darwin book have been stated before — and refuted repeatedly by scientists. So why repeat them? Are you interested in hearing atheists’ responses to your questions?
Ray: I don’t deny that the arguments I have used have been addressed many times. However, it’s only atheists that believe that they have been “refuted.” I don’t. I listen to arguments and if they don’t hold up, I don’t accept them.
Hemant: In your own words, how would you describe how evolution and natural selection are supposed to work according to the theory that is broadly accepted in the life sciences? (In other words, can you explain what evolution is before trying to debunk it?)
Ray: Someone who believes in the theory of evolution believes that life started simply and over millions of years evolved to the complex state we now see. The process of change is supposedly brought about by something Darwin called “natural selection.” Evolution has no explanation for the genesis of life, and it has never been “observed” to take place. Nor has it been scientifically proven — because it’s never been “tested” in a laboratory. Evolution, as you have conceded in your question, is simply a theory. Darwinian evolution is often confused by believers with a species adapting within its own kind. Transitions within a species (a kind) is not Darwinian evolution.
Hemant: What is the strongest evidence you can think of in support of evolution by natural selection?
Ray: There is no indisputable evidence for species to species evolution. All “evidence” comes down to faith — does the believer believe the dating process or the information given by other believers in evolution. The mantra is that there are millions of fossils that scientifically prove evolution. I am often sent long lists of missing links. But as I investigate each one, they are not true missing links between kinds. There are millions of fossils that reveal adaptation within kinds, but there are no undisputed fossils that show one species (kind) evolving into another species (kind). The links between kinds were missing in Darwin’s day, and 150 years later they are still missing. To date I have seen no evidence for the theory of evolution.
Continue Reading at FriendlyAtheist.com
There is FAR more to this interview, and it gives us a glimpse into Mr. Comfort’s delusions. Hemant has outdone himself in providing this interview, and as I often say, it’s well worth your time to read.
