Science and Religion

[mmaestro]

"One cannot ask whether a theory reflects reality, just whether it agrees with observations."
-Professor Stephen Hawking

That was from an interview with Professor Hawking broadcast by the BBC on Thursday (hear the whole thing as an mp3 download here, it's fascinating). He was talking about the prospect of other dimensions, not really relevant here

Comments

[9chambers]

[continued]

There are, of course, striking anatomical differences between Neanderthals and modern humans, both in the robust postcranial skeleton and in the more bun-shaped skull, sometimes with heavy brow ridges and a forward projecting face. These features are the reason this extinct hominid form is classified as Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, a subspecies on Homo sapiens, and not as Homo sapiens sapiens, a fully modern human.

In the century since the first Neanderthal skull from the German village of that name was unearthed, substantial numbers of Neanderthal individuals, most in western Europe, as well as contemporary human fossils from the Near East, Africa, and Asia have been unearthed. They first appeared during the Eem interglacial, well before 100,000 years ago, but they were apparently few in number. Large Neanderthal sites occur in the Dordogne area of southwest France, where deep river valleys and vast limestone cliffs offered abundant shelter during the Weichsel glaciation (Bordes, 1968; Gamble 1986b). The skeletons found in French caves look like anatomical anachronisms, with massive brow ridges and squat bodies. The Neanderthals walked upright and as nimbly as modern humans. They stood just over 5 feet tall (153 cm), and their forearms were relatively short compared with those of modern people. This "classic" variety of Neanderthal is confined to western Europe and is more noticeably different from Homo sapiens than its contemporary populations found elsewhere, especially around the shores of the Mediterranean and in Asia. We find much variability among nonclassic Neanderthals, who most often display less extreme features, particularly brow ridges and other cranial features, than the classic variety of western France. It is well demonstrated at the Mt. Carmel sites of et-Tabun and es-Skhul in Israel as well as at Krapina in central Europe (Stringer, 1988; Trinkaus and Howells, 1079)."

Brian M. Fagan (University of California, Santa Barbara), People of The Earth: An Introduction to world prehistory, Seventh Edition, Harper Collins Publishers, NY,
1992. ISBN 0-673-52167-2.

So, really, these guys were our contemporaries. In fact, modern skeletons have been found in lower strata. They aren't evidence of evolution. Taking them away from the body of evidence for human evolution you've got pretty much nothing but australopithecines. Of course, more "modern" australopithecines have been found in lower strata than robust versions and looking at the skeletons it really isn't clear that the whole lot of them aren't just an extinct species of ape. Outside of those two ... you've got scraps.

Animal evolution is even more sketchy. You've got rodent sizes animals they claim were early horses. You've got totally fabricated fossils of feathered reptiles which have been exposed. I've seen tons of pictures and had this argument with scientists and professors. Sorry, none of it is all that compelling.

Evolution is based on only a few foundations when you break it down: 1. Stratification, 2. Radiometric dating, 3. Fossils. None of those have really offered much on terms of conclusive proof for evolution. The fossil evidence is sketchy. Radiometric dating depends on the a whole group of assumptions we shouldn't get into unless we are prepared for a long and boring examination. Strata ... that's your best argument. But there are anomalies. Also, we just haven't really dug up that much of the Earth. Fossils only form in certain types of terrain and in certain conditions. I mean, maybe dinosaurs and insects are found in lower strata because those regions were remote and not much else had migrated there yet. Places like America. I'm going to wait until they dig up more stuff.

Who knows what they'll turn up tomorrow. People thought the giant squid was a myth not too long ago.

[prufock]

So, really, these guys were our contemporaries. In fact, modern skeletons have been found in lower strata. They aren't evidence of evolution. Taking them away from the body of evidence for human evolution you've got pretty much nothing but australopithecines. Of course, more "modern" australopithecines have been found in lower strata than robust versions and looking at the skeletons it really isn't clear that the whole lot of them aren't just an extinct species of ape. Outside of those two ... you've got scraps.

I fail to see how a common ancestry of 2 species is NOT evidence for evolution. Wouldn't Homo sapiens neanderthalensis suggest that they were a subspecies of Homo sapiens? I think the DNA evidence contradicts that. Anyway, if the ancestor of both is Homo erectus, that in no way contradicts evolution.
What about all the other Homo species? Would you just discount those if H. neanderthalensis is not an ancestor of H. sapiens?

Evolution is based on only a few foundations when you break it down: 1. Stratification, 2. Radiometric dating, 3. Fossils.
I think you should probably add "4. Molecular/genetic evidence" to that list, even if it is a recent addition.