This is the first time Ive come across this theory, does it have any relevance? Anyone else ever heard of about it? After readin this book, A historical lie : Stone Age by harun yahya, Its pretty damn irrefutable with all the archeological evidences in the book. In short it says (and seems to prove to a certain extent) humans were not ape-like but were civilized. What do you people think? Is it really a myth propagated to achieve evolutionists agenda and the materialist philosophy (as the book states)?

p.s. I hope I didnt post in the wrong section, im new here! It was pretty random question.

Depends on which hominid species you are referring to. Our present understanding is that Homo Sapiens, though physically like us for the past 200-300 thousand years went through a sea-change in intelligence about a hundred thousand years ago with the advent of art and probably language.

After readin this book, A historical lie : Stone Age by harun yahya, Its pretty damn irrefutable with all the archeological evidences in the book. In short it says (and seems to prove to a certain extent) humans were not ape-like but were civilized. .I have stumbled across Harun Yahya's work before, though not this particular book. It is difficult to describe it without being rude, but I shall try. It lacks any of the objectivity that is required in science and he employs tricks of language and of selectivity that suggest he does not quite understand the evidence he is presenting. The alternative explanation is that he is lying, but I am too polite a lady to suggest that is probable.:rolleyes:

I went to his site to take a look at the specific book you mention. The first thing thatstruck me was that I had never seen so many pop-ups since accidentally stumbling on a porn site. :o

Here are some points based just on his remarks in the Foreword of the book.
For example he says....."you may have been handed the mistaken impression that these people were half-ape and half-human, unable to stand fully upright, lacking the ability to speak words and producing only strange grunting noises. That is because this entire falsehood has been imposed on people like yourself for the last 150 years."

If people have been handed this impression they have not received it from any reputable anthropologist. Homo sapiens evolved around 180,000 years ago. The peoples of the early stone age, the lower palaeolithic, lived as much as half a million years ago. They were not modern humans, but they were most certainly not half-ape, half-human. They walked upright. They produced hand axes of good quality.
We do not know when language emerged. It was certainly much later than this. The key word is emerged. Chimpanzees communicate with each other with a repertoire of sounds. We did not go suddenly from three dozen varied screeches and grunts to a Shakespeare sonnet. It developed slowly, though there was likely a time when some favourable brain mutations accelerated the process.
These well established facts bear little relation to the simplistic and false interpretation Harun has given. He sets up a claim that is false, then knocks it down. Not a very nice tactic.

He als writes, "Or have you ever heard that the people described as "primitive cavemen" possessed an artistic ability and understanding just as refined as those of modern artists?"
Well if you have heard of the marvellous cave paintings of 32,000 years ago in Lascaux, it is because of the work of scientists. It is a marvel that our distant ancestors produced such beautiful work, but I suspect art historians would find their techniques less advanced than modern artists. This is not to denigrate them - Rembrandt and Picasso could not have produced their works if our ancestors had not started on that creative path.

If you would like to pick out one of the things you found particularily convincing I would be happy to study it and comment on whether or not there is any substance to the particular claims. I think I know what the outcome will be - but I promise to keep an open mind.:)

Well if you have heard of the marvellous cave paintings of 32,000 years ago in Lascaux, it is because of the work of scientists.Those caves were initially stumbled upon by a pet dog. Lol.

It is a marvel that our distant ancestors produced such beautiful work, but I suspect art historians would find their techniques less advanced than modern artists.Not at all: they are graciously and reverently put in context: the pioneering of brand-new, never-before techniques. And the manifestation of an enigmatic presence: the human spirit.

This is not to denigrate them - Rembrandt and Picasso could not have produced their works if our ancestors had not started on that creative path.And perhaps the whole of modern society might never would have otherwise... sparked.

Those caves were initially stumbled upon by a pet dog. Lol.I wondered which pedantic peasant would bring that up. Now I know.:p
Not at all: they are graciously and reverently put in context: the pioneering of brand-new, never-before techniques. And the manifestation of an enigmatic presence: the human spirit. So you agree. The techniques are less advanced. In the same way that Newton's mathematics is less advanced than the math available to us today, or his physics less advanced than that of Einstein. This does not make Newton less of a genius than Einstein, it simply means that he was less informed. ....... but he was less informed.
And perhaps the whole of modern society might never would have otherwise... sparked.Which is exactly the point I was making. I'm pleased we agree.

This is the first time Ive come across this theory, does it have any relevance? Anyone else ever heard of about it? After readin this book, A historical lie : Stone Age by harun yahya, Its pretty damn irrefutable with all the archeological evidences in the book. In short it says (and seems to prove to a certain extent) humans were not ape-like but were civilized. What do you people think? Is it really a myth propagated to achieve evolutionists agenda and the materialist philosophy (as the book states)?

p.s. I hope I didnt post in the wrong section, im new here! It was pretty random question.

Oh for fuck's sake.

"Harun Yahya" (H.YaHya) is the secrety-secret pen name of Adnan Oktar, an extremist literalist muslim in Turkey. This same little freak has been campaigning against evolution for some time; I recall that he did a little jail time too for something or other. I trashed some of his stooges once and called him out personally a couple times for a debate on evolution but he's too scared to do it. There is nothing whatsoever mythological about the Stone Age, or evolution. There is a great deal mythological about a literalist reading of islam, and about Oktar's comprehension of evolution. I challenge him again here and now - or you - to hold up any of his claptrap arguments and "evidences" for analysis. And I'm not even an archaeologist.

Sleepless, don't post this islamic supremacist crap here again. Anyone who accidentally uses the word "evidences" has just given away his beliefs, and his posting locale.

Sayonara, Ankara.

In short it says (and seems to prove to a certain extent) humans were not ape-like but were civilized. What do you people think? Is it really a myth propagated to achieve evolutionists agenda and the materialist philosophy (as the book states)?


I came to that conclusion about three years ago. Just look to the beginning of recorded history and where we are today then imagine being in a world which is completely foreign. AND add to that no language, no books, no paper, no pencils.

How long would it take to get from this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Silizium_pulver.jpg
http://www.dgs.de/317.0.html
http://www.dgs.de/uploads/pics/Silizium.gif

to this:

http://www1.istockphoto.com/file_thumbview_approve/1194372/2/istockphoto_1194372_microchip_on_a_fingertip.jpg
http://www1.istockphoto.com/file_thumbview_approve/1194372/2/istockphoto_1194372_microchip_on_a_fingertip.jpg

If we were to assume there was no capability\knowledge to communicate how long would that take. But really just surviving and the methodology of survival would take an enormous amount of time.:scratchin:

The whole concept of radical physical and intellectual changes to aid in the development of humans seems quite far fetched. Perhaps even wishful thinking. I am not sure how this can be disputed.

I should add i am not sure about the term 'stone age' or it's interpretation's- the term can be acceptable.

In retrospect, it seems almost logical humans entered this world naked with ingenuity and desire as their sole motiving force or ability- and odf course their brain power. Overcoming obstacles, the only concept encoded into their being to go forth and see what can be accomplished. Fighting to survive would just make them stronger, what do i know? i know nothing. Nothing more than i need to get on the other side of that mountain. Why? Becuase i just do.

We got from point A to point B by trial and error, the transmission of knowledge and the use of our brains. These steps are well documented in the literature.

Oh for fuck's sake.

"Harun Yahya" (H.YaHya) is the secrety-secret pen name of Adnan Oktar, an extremist literalist muslim in Turkey. This same little freak has been campaigning against evolution for some time; I recall that he did a little jail time too for something or other. I trashed some of his stooges once and called him out personally a couple times for a debate on evolution but he's too scared to do it. There is nothing whatsoever mythological about the Stone Age, or evolution. There is a great deal mythological about a literalist reading of islam, and about Oktar's comprehension of evolution. I challenge him again here and now - or you - to hold up any of his claptrap arguments and "evidences" for analysis. And I'm not even an archaeologist.

Sleepless, don't post this islamic supremacist crap here again. Anyone who accidentally uses the word "evidences" has just given away his beliefs, and his posting locale.

Sayonara, Ankara.


1. Anyone whos heard of him knows his real name, so that hardly makes it secret, I dont see why you would raise such a point, pretty irrelevant to what I asked.

2. So he was jailed, again..irrelevant to what I asked.

3. Campaigning against evolution doesnt make one a freak, but makes the other side sound pretty immature for the name-calling.

4. You trashed his stooges..Congrats, does it look like anyone cares?

5. Please do NOT assume, I did not post to start a debate over his credentials, evidences or whatever, especially not with someone as biased as you seem to be. This happened to be the first time I stumbled across something like that, thus I asked for others` opinions.

6. I dont see why the hell you dragged Islam into this anyway, again irrelevant and biased.

1. Anyone whos heard of him knows his real name, so that hardly makes it secret, I dont see why you would raise such a point, pretty irrelevant to what I asked.

2. So he was jailed, again..irrelevant to what I asked.

3. Campaigning against evolution doesnt make one a freak, but makes the other side sound pretty immature for the name-calling.

4. You trashed his stooges..Congrats, does it look like anyone cares?

5. Please do NOT assume, I did not post to start a debate over his credentials, evidences or whatever, especially not with someone as biased as you seem to be. This happened to be the first time I stumbled across something like that, thus I asked for others` opinions.

6. I dont see why the hell you dragged Islam into this anyway, again irrelevant and biased.

I'm not going to enter the debate proper but I would like to point out something to you that is VERY important: knowing your source(s).

I also know absolutely nothing about this particular writer but it would be very foolish of someone to base their opinion of a subject on the word of someone who is recognized as a crackpot or even someone who's credentials have been called into question by other professionals in the same field.

Again, passing no judgment in this particular case since I don't have any direct knowledge of the people involved, it's just that it's always smart to try and find out everything you can about someone before just accepting anything they say or defending their position based on what they've written. Many people have personal agendas that don't correspond with the actual truth.

Agreed. I dont believe everything I read, simultaneously, I dont want to be close minded either, thus my entire point of posting (to find out if this claim has ever been made before or is it the first of its kind and whether it has any relevance).

Thanks.

Agreed. I dont believe everything I read, simultaneously, I dont want to be close minded either, thus my entire point of posting (to find out if this claim has ever been made before or is it the first of its kind and whether it has any relevance).

Thanks.

You are welcome and I do applaud your efforts to try and find the truth. That is always a noble and worthy exercise. :)

1. Anyone whos heard of him knows his real name, so that hardly makes it secret, I dont see why you would raise such a point, pretty irrelevant to what I asked.

Because it's a dodge. He should either sell his books under his own name, or just shut up. He also uses petty, shitty little strongarm tactics against anyone who disagrees with him. To wit:

http://evolutionspace.wordpress.com/category/harun-yahya/

2. So he was jailed, again..irrelevant to what I asked.

Possibly! - but it speaks volumes as to his proclivities and character.

The fact is that, his publications and his foundation (Science Research Foundation) have recently been banned in Turkey, and most members of his "sect" have been sent to court. This was not due to their Islamic and scientific activities, but due to crimes such as blackmail, extortion, possession of unlicensed weapons and sexual intercourse with minors.

http://www.mukto-mona.com/debunk/harun_yahya/index.htm

A humanitarian, seemingly.

3. Campaigning against evolution doesnt make one a freak, but makes the other side sound pretty immature for the name-calling.

When evolution is demonstrably true, it does make the campaigner a freak. In which case it isn't name-calling, but rather, description. But go ahead. Post his thoughts on the Stone Age or evolution. We'll address their "irrefutability" one argument at a time.

4. You trashed his stooges..Congrats, does it look like anyone cares?

Apparently you do. ;)

5. Please do NOT assume, I did not post to start a debate over his credentials, evidences or whatever, especially not with someone as biased as you seem to be. This happened to be the first time I stumbled across something like that, thus I asked for others` opinions.

And others' opinions you have! Mine is thus: he's a deceptive supremacist. I've illustrated why that is. If you're already an Oktarist or whatever they're calling his band of loonies, then it's too late; and in fact, anyone starting off their posts here with an advertisement of Adnan Oktar's "infallibility" is probably already in that camp. But if I've defamed you, then I apologize and I urge you to speak on: produce his arguments and support them, and we shall see.

6. I dont see why the hell you dragged Islam into this anyway, again irrelevant and biased.

Same as I'd do for Falwell or Robertson's religion. There's a long line of nimrods behind anti-evolutionism. Oktar merely has to take a number.

He also had a site with some kind of deceptive childrens' title also, where he urged muslim kids not to defile themselves by playing with unbelievers. That was a while back, of course; I wonder if he's gotten around to changing it? Anyway: not a saint, but a supremacist. Not an unbiased source.

It's pretty damn irrefutable with all the archeological evidences in the book.To say the book is irrefutable is to say his evidence is irrefutable. Have you examined his evidence and correlated it with the wealth of peer-reviewed and exhaustively organized evidence for the accepted theories of human progress? Crackpots accomplish their goals by picking and choosing evidence which taken separately appears to support their theories, by quoting research papers from third-rate universities, by cloaking fallacious arguments in scientific-sounding language, and by presenting evidence that is downright fraudulent.In short it says (and seems to prove to a certain extent) humans were not ape-like. . . .Even modern humans are apelike because we are, in fact, a species of ape. The "Great Apes" include orangutans, chimpanzees, bonobos, the two species of gorilla, and humans. The various species of gibbons make up the "lesser apes." Apes are simply primates without tails and various other differences from the monkeys. The differences between humans and the other apes are notable but not sufficient to put us in a different taxonomic group: the realigned pelvis that makes possible permanent bipedalism and face-to-face copulation, the opposable thumb that gives us more dexterity, the buoyancy that allows us to swim (and the vestigial webs between our fingers that make many of us wonder if we spent some time as an aquatic animal), the paucity of body hair, and of course the enormous brain case that makes birthing a problem but makes room for the huge forebrain which gives us the unique ability to override our instincts with reasoned and learned behavior. Just watch a troupe of professional gymnasts at work; watch human children try to solve a physical problem with their hands and eyes; watch a tribe of gorillas go through their daily lives; watch Washoe the chimpanzee "speak" in American Sign Language. We are incontrovertibly apes.. . . . but were civilized.What extraordinary archeological evidence does he present to substantiate the extraordinary assertion that these people were civilized? We have an enormous archeological record on the development of civilization, which began with the building of Jericho, the world's first city, in approximately 9000BCE, and was repeated independently in five other places at five later times (Egypt, India, China, Olmec and Inca). Before that the archeological sites show only Neolithic farming and fishing villages, and before that only the remains of campsites of Mesolithic and Paleolithic nomadic hunter-gatherers. The word "civilized" has a precise meaning: "the building of cities." It is not a touchy-feely word implying a recognizable level of morality, art, love, peace and harmony.

The "Stone Age" is called that because the only materials technology that had been developed was the working of stone. Flint-knapping provided firestarters, sharp cutting blades and arrowheads, and stone hammers were used for driving pegs into the ground and other similar uses. This allowed the working of wood, clay and reed fibers. The first cities were built out of wood and stone using stone tools, so technically the Stone Age did not end until around 3500BC when tin and copper ore were discovered, mined and refined, making possible the technology of bronze-based metallurgy. Nonetheless we distinguish between the Neolithic Era, the "Late Stone Age" in which the technologies of farming and animal husbandry--agriculture--were developed and made possible the collection of multiple clans of people in permanent settlements; and the building of true cities, which we simply call the Dawn of Civilization.

Civilization leaves behind huge piles of evidence because it is characterized by an explosion in the rate of creation of artifacts. The cities themselves, even the early ones made largely of wood, leave behind enormous archeological footprints. Trash dumps alone are an archeologist's dream. We haven't stumbled onto all of them but we find a good representative sample, and there are none older than Jericho. Even if we missed a few they won't push the Dawn of Civilization back by more than a millennium or two.

The early humans did not live in cities, they lived in small bands of hunter-gatherers. Their state of the art in technology was stone tools. For this reason, we call that era the Stone Age and there is no reason to call it anything else.p.s. I hope I didn't post in the wrong section, I'm new here! It was pretty random question.This would get more action and more scholarly replies in the History subforum. And it probably would not be derailed into yet another pointless debate about evolution. Send a PM to the Moderator of this subforum if you'd like to have it moved.

Thankyou, Fraggle. I just don't have the time for these people. But it goes almost without saying that it wasn't "pretty random question".

I also fail to see what is to be gained by this position. What is Oktar - taking a break, presumably, from underaged women - seeking to conclude here? That humans never had societal development, but emerged from Edin, that "high-walled garden" of the antediluvian past, as such, in toto, an early bronze society? Would this really move society that much closer to the literal reading of the Qu'ran - and presumably the Bible and Torah? - that he and his cult so earnestly desire? It's astounding that mountains of evidence make so little impression on the paranoid and societal insecurity of Oktar's few, proud madmen.

...I'm working the bait as much as possible here, but I think the fish has slipped the line. Ah well. For the best.

im just wondering if theses apes were supposed to be closely related to have the same genes as a rat and the same pigmentation as a pig
or is it just humans that have that

What a dummy i am. I didnt even take the title into consideration and responded to the post's main point.

'Stone Age' dentist:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/nolpda/ifs_news/hi/newsid_4882000/4882968.stm

We have an enormous archeological record on the development of civilization, which began with the building of Jericho, the world's first city, in approximately 9000BCE, and was repeated independently in five other places at five later times (Egypt, India, China, Olmec and Inca).
There is one other - Caral (in Peru).
Norte Chico culture.

edit: Found a wiki on it, but it has little information. I saw a documentary on it, I think it was Discovery or PBS. Or maybe BCC... don't remember.
Caral was inhabited between roughly 2627 BC and 2020 BC, enclosing an area of 66 hectares. Caral was described by its excavators as the oldest urban center in the Americas, a claim that was later challenged as other ancient sites were found nearby. Accommodating more than 3,000 inhabitants it is the best-studied and one of the largest Norte Chico sites known.

http://piparmetra.net/pagrabs/caral_04.jpg

http://piparmetra.net/pagrabs/caral_05.jpg

http://piparmetra.net/pagrabs/caral_07.jpg

Stone Age People

They will have had very primitive technology, but socially they were probably as complex as ourselves.

People in the UK and Ireland in the 20th century have lived lives not very much different from Neolithic farmers.

My uncle was a prolific reader, but other than that, his life as a subsistence farmer in Ireland was not massively different from theirs.
As far as technology went, they only turned on the radio for the news.
batteries were too precious.
Before the 1940's they would not even have had a radio.

No:

Stone Age
–noun
the period in the history of humankind, preceding the Bronze Age and the Iron Age, and marked by the use of stone implements and weapons: subdivided into the Paleolithic, Mesolithic, and Neolithic periods.

What a dummy i am. I didnt even take the title into consideration and responded to the post's main point.

'Stone Age' dentist:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/nolpda/ifs_news/hi/newsid_4882000/4882968.stm

Ok that was worth reading the thread...awesome.

I always wondered how we got over the whole "crowded teeth" flaw with our big brains.

sleepless,

why did you ignore Hipparchia's reasonable, informational, willing to help ou understand post and went right into Geoff's provocative post?

did you come here to fight? are you looking to be controversial?

why don't you take her suggestion and post some of these irrefutable arguments that you read in this book and let us have a go at them?

Modern humans have been around what...100,000(identical to us)...to 160,000(Homo sapiens idaltu).

Consider the more wild variations of Homo sapiens such as cro-magnon (absorbed) or Neanderthal. Both had bigger brains that us. Better bodies even, more robust anyway(not counting ability to reproduce or life efficiency). These guys were around for 10s of thousands of years.

That my friends is a LONG time when talking about civilization.

I have heard those in the field talk about the very slow, buildup through the neolithic periods, but I just don't buy it. It's ALL theory. Jericho was a great example. They though it was bullshit, till someone when for it and DUG IT UP. You have to dig pretty effing deep to find stuff(garbage or a city!) from 30000 years ago. Finds of remains from even 6000 years ago are considered priceless and extremely lucky. Consider the Beaker culture of Europe 8000 years ago - far more advanced than they thought they were even 40 years ago in the field of archeology. They were also very co-operative.

Almost certainly it was stone age all over the place at 9000 BC. It doesn't mean that pockets of "civilization"(yes I mean cities) did not occur before then).

The longer you go back the harder it is to find the evidence and frankly when is IS (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yonaguni_monument#Seabed_structures) found, the guys in charge of the official story right now like to deny deny deny until they just can't deny anymore, the lid has to get blow right off(again Jericho excavation is a good example).

I have stumbled across Harun Yahya's work before, though not this particular book. It is difficult to describe it without being rude, but I shall try. It lacks any of the objectivity that is required in science and he employs tricks of language and of selectivity that suggest he does not quite understand the evidence he is presenting. The alternative explanation is that he is lying, but I am too polite a lady to suggest that is probable.:rolleyes:

I went to his site to take a look at the specific book you mention. The first thing thatstruck me was that I had never seen so many pop-ups since accidentally stumbling on a porn site. :o

Here are some points based just on his remarks in the Foreword of the book.
For example he says....."you may have been handed the mistaken impression that these people were half-ape and half-human, unable to stand fully upright, lacking the ability to speak words and producing only strange grunting noises. That is because this entire falsehood has been imposed on people like yourself for the last 150 years."

If people have been handed this impression they have not received it from any reputable anthropologist. Homo sapiens evolved around 180,000 years ago. The peoples of the early stone age, the lower palaeolithic, lived as much as half a million years ago. They were not modern humans, but they were most certainly not half-ape, half-human. They walked upright. They produced hand axes of good quality.
We do not know when language emerged. It was certainly much later than this. The key word is emerged. Chimpanzees communicate with each other with a repertoire of sounds. We did not go suddenly from three dozen varied screeches and grunts to a Shakespeare sonnet. It developed slowly, though there was likely a time when some favourable brain mutations accelerated the process.
These well established facts bear little relation to the simplistic and false interpretation Harun has given. He sets up a claim that is false, then knocks it down. Not a very nice tactic.

He als writes, "Or have you ever heard that the people described as "primitive cavemen" possessed an artistic ability and understanding just as refined as those of modern artists?"
Well if you have heard of the marvellous cave paintings of 32,000 years ago in Lascaux, it is because of the work of scientists. It is a marvel that our distant ancestors produced such beautiful work, but I suspect art historians would find their techniques less advanced than modern artists. This is not to denigrate them - Rembrandt and Picasso could not have produced their works if our ancestors had not started on that creative path.

If you would like to pick out one of the things you found particularily convincing I would be happy to study it and comment on whether or not there is any substance to the particular claims. I think I know what the outcome will be - but I promise to keep an open mind.:)




I do believe you have a valid point there, thus I went back to reread the book and do a bit of my own research. There are several inconsistencies in the book, most of the evidence he has provided dates back to the neolithic period, of which it has already been acknowledged that these people were using sophisticated tools, art, clothes out of hide etc. by then. Also I had not read about the Levoilles Technique. I suppose youre right about the lying part, either that or he was greatly uninformed, his claims about the complete lack of intermediary forms of human development fossils are misleading, a quick look at wiki proved that, however I have to assert that even those fossil evidences arent very concrete.
Yet what I couldnt beat down was, that a few of the evidences he presented like the copper awl (datin back 10000 BC) and the copper beads (8000-10000 BC), Iron pot found in a coal mine (here apparently the coal is dated back to 300 Ma) which was discovered in 1912. Another metallic vessel, bell-shaped dating back a 100,000 years, where as scientists claim use of iron began in 1200 BC only when humans had acquired the intelligence to smelt ores.

Well they can usually explain away those out of place artifacts. They even admit now to the copper age being 2-3,000 years older.

The Antithykera device really set them back though - they had no idea of how far advanced the Greeks(well a few of them anyway) were with machinery. On the basis of this device alone we can see how a (relatively) small society can really achieve amazing gains in advancement. It does NOT have to be a global or even regional gain in technology.

I don't think that human capacity for intelligence has changed since 100,000 or so years ago,
biologically we are the same humans with the same brains.

So the likelyhood of someone inventing the use of iron on his own theoretically was the same 80,000 years ago as it was 3000 years ago, as it is now.

However keeping that knowledge requires an advances enough society. There has to be someone who teaches, and there have to be those who learn, and they all have to live long enough to leave an archeological record.

Considering that a small society is very fragile and can be swiped out by famine, natural disasters, other animals, etc., and that the societies long, long ago probably were less social than the first city civilizations, there is no wonder that use of iron could have been invented many times,, maybe even used for a 100 years, then forgotten because the one man who knew how to do it died, or something other happened.

After the invention of art and later writing the preservation of knowledge became much easier.

Well they can usually explain away those out of place artifacts. They even admit now to the copper age being 2-3,000 years older.

The Antithykera device really set them back though - they had no idea of how far advanced the Greeks(well a few of them anyway) were with machinery. On the basis of this device alone we can see how a (relatively) small society can really achieve amazing gains in advancement. It does NOT have to be a global or even regional gain in technology.

Whats that?

Antikythera Mechanism is a mechanical computer! Quite fascinating really.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antikythera_mechanism

It's an OOPA that is actually - ACKNOWLEDGED by the "man".

http://hardware.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/11/23/2242225

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antikythera_mechanism

I don't think that human capacity for intelligence has changed since 100,000 or so years ago,
biologically we are the same humans with the same brains.

So the likelyhood of someone inventing the use of iron on his own theoretically was the same 80,000 years ago as it was 3000 years ago, as it is now.

However keeping that knowledge requires an advances enough society. There has to be someone who teaches, and there have to be those who learn, and they all have to live long enough to leave an archeological record.

Considering that a small society is very fragile and can be swiped out by famine, natural disasters, other animals, etc., and that the societies long, long ago probably were less social than the first city civilizations, there is no wonder that use of iron could have been invented many times,, maybe even used for a 100 years, then forgotten because the one man who knew how to do it died, or something other happened.

After the invention of art and later writing the preservation of knowledge became much easier.

That would require intelligence, and communication right? One of the metallic artifact dates back to the paleolithic era, if i am correct, the people back then were primitive, unsophisticated and not yet developed. Isnt there a contradiction then?

I don't think that human capacity for intelligence has changed since 100,000 or so years ago,
biologically we are the same humans with the same brains.

So the likelyhood of someone inventing the use of iron on his own theoretically was the same 80,000 years ago as it was 3000 years ago, as it is now.

However keeping that knowledge requires an advances enough society. There has to be someone who teaches, and there have to be those who learn, and they all have to live long enough to leave an archeological record.

Considering that a small society is very fragile and can be swiped out by famine, natural disasters, other animals, etc., and that the societies long, long ago probably were less social than the first city civilizations, there is no wonder that use of iron could have been invented many times,, maybe even used for a 100 years, then forgotten because the one man who knew how to do it died, or something other happened.

After the invention of art and later writing the preservation of knowledge became much easier.

Frankly if there WAS an iron made tool from 10000 years ago , it would long long ago have oxidized. They frankly would have to get extremely lucky to find a civilization that actually HAD iron tools from 10000 years ago. They would be nothing more than stick handles(petrified) now.

In 10000 years we will leave only plastic and some concrete foundations. At least we can for sure say they never invented plastic. We are the plastic people.

Please explain primitive, unsophisticated and not yet developed.
They lived in societies. In order to live in a society you have to communicate.

Even neanderthals had ritual caves in the Alps and so presumably could communicate with each other to a sophisticated enough level to talk about death and afterlife (from the nature of the rituals, you can read up on that, for ex. in Primitive Mythology by J.Campbell).
There is intelligence, there is communication. What contradiction?

p.s. I believe we can start speculating about more developed societies since some 40,000 BCE,
art developed then, and with it the intensity of imagination.

Frankly if there WAS an iron made tool from 10000 years ago , it would long long ago have oxidized. They frankly would have to get extremely lucky to find a civilization that actually HAD iron tools from 10000 years ago. They would be nothing more than stick handles now.

In 10000 years we will leave only plastic and some concrete foundations. At least we can for sure say they never invented plastic. We are the plastic people.

Thanks for the point.

Frankly if there WAS an iron made tool from 10000 years ago , it would long long ago have oxidized. They frankly would have to get extremely lucky to find a civilization that actually HAD iron tools from 10000 years ago. They would be nothing more than stick handles now.

In 10000 years we will leave only plastic and some concrete foundations. At least we can for sure say they never invented plastic. We are the plastic people.

Exactly that would explain the lack of such evidence. Man could have been well advanced, intelligent not primitive at all.

Please explain primitive, unsophisticated and not yet developed.They lived in societies. In order to live in a society you have to communicate.

Even neanderthals had ritual caves in the Alps and so presumably could communicate with each other to a sophisticated enough level to talk about death and afterlife (from the nature of the rituals, you can read up on that, for ex. in Primitive Mythology by J.Campbell).
There is intelligence, there is communication. What contradiction?

p.s. I believe we can start speculating about more developed societies since some 25,000-30,000 BCE,
art developed then, and with it the intensity of imagination.

In the early paleolithic era, they were primitive as in not yet developed, they still hadnt evolved into ther current mophological form, therefore they would be unintelligent and incapable of walking upright, and only had knowledge of bones and stones. If I am to assume all that is true then these early humans could hardly have been capable of producing metallic goods, learning/communicating.

The other explanation is there was NO iron tools. Since this is more "simple", scientists prefer this explanation. I think however other possibilities should not be dismissed, particularly with archeology. Most in the field seem to be more worried about their reputations, than what they are digging up.

In the early paleolithic era, they were primitive as in not yet developed, they still hadnt evolved into ther current mophological form, therefore they would be unintelligent and incapable of walking upright, and only had knowledge of bones and stones. If I am to assume all that is true then these early humans could hardly have been capable of producing metallic goods, learning/communicating.

We are talking about homo sapiens, right?

Homo Habilis (handyman), i'm guessing...

This is the first time Ive come across this theory, does it have any relevance? Anyone else ever heard of about it? After readin this book, A historical lie : Stone Age by harun yahya, Its pretty damn irrefutable with all the archeological evidences in the book. In short it says (and seems to prove to a certain extent) humans were not ape-like but were civilized. What do you people think? Is it really a myth propagated to achieve evolutionists agenda and the materialist philosophy (as the book states)?

That is from the original post. By humans I understood our own species - homo sapiens.

I do believe you have a valid point there, thus I went back to reread the book and do a bit of my own research. There are several inconsistencies in the book, most of the evidence he has provided dates back to the neolithic period, of which it has already been acknowledged that these people were using sophisticated tools, art, clothes out of hide etc. by then. Also I had not read about the Levoilles Technique. I suppose youre right about the lying part, either that or he was greatly uninformed, his claims about the complete lack of intermediary forms of human development fossils are misleading

Yes.

Yet what I couldnt beat down was, that a few of the evidences he presented like the copper awl (datin back 10000 BC) and the copper beads (8000-10000 BC), Iron pot found in a coal mine (here apparently the coal is dated back to 300 Ma) which was discovered in 1912. Another metallic vessel, bell-shaped dating back a 100,000 years, where as scientists claim use of iron began in 1200 BC only when humans had acquired the intelligence to smelt ores.

I would be quite interested to see this posted, as would all archaeology, I imagine.

That would require intelligence, and communication right? One of the metallic artifact dates back to the paleolithic era, if i am correct, the people back then were primitive, unsophisticated and not yet developed. Isnt there a contradiction then?It's a truly extraordinary assertion that metal artifacts were developed in the Paleolithic Era. What kind of artifacts are these? Decorative, perhaps? Tin has one of the lowest melting points of any metal. It's conceivable that in a hot wood fire, some accidentally gathered rocks of tin ore could have been smelted. But tin by itself isn't very useful for toolmaking. Copper, the other metal that alloys with tin to form bronze--the first metal strong enough to launch a technology--has a melting point of almost 2000 degrees F. It's hard to imagine how--or even why--a Paleolithic village would have created a fire that hot.

To say that a people does not have advanced technology is not the same as saying they're "primitive, unsophisicated and undeveloped." They may have an advanced philosophy, a sophisticated morality, and a complex social structure, but that in itself does not automatically give them any technology beyond the Neolithic technologies of farming and animal husbandry, which allowed them to live in large permanent settlements.

Metallurgy is something that has to be developed in steps. Have a reason to build a fire hot enough to melt ore. Accidentally gather some ore and toss it into the fire. Stand close enough to that fire to notice the liquid metal oozing out of the rocks, or else notice the smelted metal in the detritus of the cooled fire later. Figure out what happened. Gather the smelted metal, build another fire, melt it again, pound it with rocks to shape it into tools. When that only proves to be marginally useful, go through the same process with another metal, come up with the brilliant idea of melting the two smelted metals together and discovering that you've invented a nice durable alloy. Oh yeah I almost forgot, tin ore and copper ore almost never occur in close proximity, so without the draft animals that you haven't domesticated yet you've got some long walking to do--and on the way back you've got to carry a bunch of heavy rocks without those draft animals.

There's a reason that civilization was invented before metallurgy. Cities had draft animals to carry the ore and cities had commerce with each other so the city with the tin mine could collaborate with the city with the copper mine to forge bronze tools.

There's also a reason that agriculture was invented before civilization. Paleolithic people HAD TO live a nomadic life because their food supply was not stable. They had to follow their game animals around their migratory pattern, and even their nuts and seeds and herbs were seasonal. Paleolithic people could not establish permanent settlements because they could not permanently settle.

They had to invent the technology of animal husbandry first, allowing them to raise an adequate food supply in one place, and THEN they could start building permanent villages. This allowed them to invent furniture and large artifacts--like stoves, which were the inspiration for smelters and smithies. After living in villages for several hundred or several thousand years, then gradually the villages combined into cities, which had enough surplus labor and enough draft animals and enough trade to establish metallurgy.

First animal husbandry. Second permanent villages. Third stoves. Fourth cities. Fifth smelters and smithies. Finally metallurgy.

Paleolithic people can't develop metallurgy. Not because they're stupid or unsophisticated. Because technologies are developed in a sequence.

It's like saying hey the Romans could have invented computers. No they could not, because first they have to invent electricity!

Hello. Youre right about all that. Anyway this artifact, an iron pot, it was found in a large chunk of coal in Oklahoma, now it says the coal was dated back to 300 mya, not the iron, what do I make of that? Also a fossilized shoe sole found in a 213 million years old rock, this finding was published in a 1922 NY newspaper. But how is that possible?!

When they say homo sapiens came into their current morphological form 250 thousand years ago, is that mere speculation, or is the estimate confirm? Is there any possibility that humans existed long before that, assuming evolution did not occur?

Theres this table of fossil records of the homo species, if u search on wiki for human evolution I cant post the link i dont have 20 posts. I wanted to know how relevant are these finds. And also, if there have been discoveries of primate fossils linking them to the homo species. Can DNA tests of these fossils also indicate mutations that resulted in their evolution into higher species?

Fascinating.

This artifact, an iron pot, it was found in a large chunk of coal in Oklahoma, now it says the coal was dated back to 300 mya, not the iron, what do I make of that?Use Occam's Razor and examine the simplest explanation first: fraud. Fraud is common, some people are getting very good at it, and the rest of us aren't expecting it. If the coal and the iron have different carbon dates, that's a pretty good indication that somebody has been very cleverly messing with the evidence and didn't expect to be tripped up by carbon dating.Also a fossilized shoe sole found in a 213 million years old rock, this finding was published in a 1922 NY newspaper. But how is that possible?Some sciences like physics were very mature in 1922. Paleontology was not one of them. I don't think they were doing carbon isotope dating yet. They would not have been able to identify the shoe as a hoax. Look up "Piltdown Man." That was a hoax that fooled a lot of people for a long time.When they say Homo sapiens came into their current morphological form 250 thousand years ago, is that mere speculation, or is the estimate confirmed?There's a pretty decent fossil record of the lineage of the hominoids ("Great Apes"). Fossils of human-like creatures from earlier eras display the predicted continuity between modern humans and the common ancestor of humans and chimpanzees. There is a fair stock of fossils of earlier species within genus Homo, and the farther back you go, the less differentiated they are from the other apes.Is there any possibility that humans existed long before that, assuming evolution did not occur?I don't understand your question. We can see snapshots in the fossil record of the evolution of humans, chimpanzees and bonobos from that species of chimp-like ape that lived around ten million years ago. How could modern humans have lived at a time when our ancestors had not yet diverged into their descendant species? This would be like whales living a hundred million years ago. We can track their evolution from primitive hippopotamuses, and there weren't even any hippopotamuses yet.There's this table of fossil records of the homo species, if u search on wiki for human evolution. I wanted to know how relevant are these finds.I don't understand what you mean by "relevant." They are representative examples of the fossil record of the evolution of the species within genus Homo.And also, if there have been discoveries of primate fossils linking them to the homo species.You probably mean "the Homo genus." Other genera such as Australopithecus illustrate that linkage. Humans are primates--just like humans are apes and humans are mammals--so the wording of your question is confusing.Can DNA tests of these fossils also indicate mutations that resulted in their evolution into higher species?The process of fossilization by definition washes out the organic tissue and replaces it with minerals. There is no DNA to test. They occasionally find tiny pockets of DNA in samples in which the fossilization process was not 100% complete. But the DNA is fragmented and difficult to analyze. The older the fossil, the less likely that any of the DNA survives. Paleontologists would be in heaven if they could do DNA tests on their fossils. :)

Hello. Youre right about all that. Anyway this artifact, an iron pot, it was found in a large chunk of coal in Oklahoma, now it says the coal was dated back to 300 mya, not the iron, what do I make of that? Also a fossilized shoe sole found in a 213 million years old rock, this finding was published in a 1922 NY newspaper. But how is that possible?!

Both of these statements would require citation before any argument can proceed. The shoe sole is, as I recall, a hoax. Here's a site concerned with the investigation of those purportedly human tracks:

However, the "man track" claims have not stood up to close scientific scrutiny, and have been abandoned even by most creationists. The supposed human tracks have involved a variety of phenomena, including forms of elongate (metatarsal) dinosaur tracks, erosional features, indistinct markings of uncertain origin, and some doctored and carved specimens (most of the latter on loose blocks of rock).

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/paluxy.html

When they say homo sapiens came into their current morphological form 250 thousand years ago, is that mere speculation, or is the estimate confirm?

The estimate is confirmed from radiodating, among other techniques. I hope you don't assume these numbers are pulled out of the air?

Is there any possibility that humans existed long before that, assuming evolution did not occur?

There is no evidence to suggest or indicate such a possibility. There is also no reason to assume that evolution or descent with modification did not occur.

Theres this table of fossil records of the homo species, if u search on wiki for human evolution I cant post the link i dont have 20 posts. I wanted to know how relevant are these finds.

Very, probably.

And also, if there have been discoveries of primate fossils linking them to the homo species. Can DNA tests of these fossils also indicate mutations that resulted in their evolution into higher species?

"Higher", first, is a misnomer. There is no "higher", only more complex, and differences in complexity among species of Homo are minor at best; the majority of difference would be quantitative in brain patterns and behaviour.

DNA indicates high similarity among most of Homo, with something like a 0.5% difference in sequence between Neanderthals and Homo sapiens as I recall. Similarity to chimpanzees - long considered our closest relatives - is lower, with the DNA sequence difference being slightly greater than 1%. With respect to your question about primates being linked to Homo sapiens, this would suggest a high degree of similarity (99%) and, thereby, genetic relationship.

Here's a link regarding some of the functional mutational differentiation between humans and chimps. I think it should answer some of the issues underlying your questions:

Chimp, human DNA comparison finds vast similarities, key differences

By TOM PAULSON
SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER REPORTER

An international team of 67 scientists, led by a top genome researcher in Seattle, may have moved us a few steps closer toward figuring out precisely what in the genetic code makes us human -- or, at least, not chimpanzees.

"By comparing the human and chimp genomes, we can see the process of evolution clearly in the changes (in DNA) since we diverged from our common ancestor," said Robert Waterston, director of genome sciences at the University of Washington and lead author of a report on the project in today's edition of the journal Nature.

Humans and chimps each have some 3 billion base units of DNA in their genomes, differing by only 1.2 percent when compared in this way. Other methods of comparison estimate a genetic difference of at most 4 percent.

"We're not that different," Waterston said.

But we have language, cars, espresso machines and psychotherapy. How could all that result from just a comparatively small number of genetic changes in the overall blueprint?

Waterston acknowledges that scientists are a long way off from answering such questions. But we're getting closer, he says. He noted one gene, known as FOXP2, that may help explain why we talk and chimps don't. An earlier study of a British family with an inherited, severe deficit in speech discovered the cause of the disorder -- an altered form of FOXP2.

"It turns out chimps have the same (genetic) sequence as that family with the speech deficit," Waterston said. Comparing the human and chimp genomes, he said, shows that the speech-friendly form of FOXP2 really took hold in humans some 150,000 years ago.

"That gene went through a selective sweep," said Evan Eichler, a co-author and top genome scientist who recently joined Waterston at the UW. That's genome-speak, Eichler explained, for saying that those humans who got the chatty form of FOXP2 went on a reproductive binge and overwhelmed those who remained genetically at a loss for words.

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/238852_chimp01.html

Use Occam's Razor and examine the simplest explanation first: fraud. Fraud is common, some people are getting very good at it, and the rest of us aren't expecting it. If the coal and the iron have different carbon dates, that's a pretty good indication that somebody has been very cleverly messing with the evidence and didn't expect to be tripped up by carbon dating.Some sciences like physics were very mature in 1922. Paleontology was not one of them. I don't think they were doing carbon isotope dating yet. They would not have been able to identify the shoe as a hoax. Look up "Piltdown Man." That was a hoax that fooled a lot of people for a long time.There's a pretty decent fossil record of the lineage of the hominoids ("Great Apes"). Fossils of human-like creatures from earlier eras display the predicted continuity between modern humans and the common ancestor of humans and chimpanzees. There is a fair stock of fossils of earlier species within genus Homo, and the farther back you go, the less differentiated they are from the other apes.I don't understand your question. We can see snapshots in the fossil record of the evolution of humans, chimpanzees and bonobos from that species of chimp-like ape that lived around ten million years ago. How could modern humans have lived at a time when our ancestors had not yet diverged into their descendant species? This would be like whales living a hundred million years ago. We can track their evolution from primitive hippopotamuses, and there weren't even any hippopotamuses yet.I don't understand what you mean by "relevant." They are representative examples of the fossil record of the evolution of the species within genus Homo.You probably mean "the Homo genus." Other genera such as Australopithecus illustrate that linkage. Humans are primates--just like humans are apes and humans are mammals--so the wording of your question is confusing.The process of fossilization by definition washes out the organic tissue and replaces it with minerals. There is no DNA to test. They occasionally find tiny pockets of DNA in samples in which the fossilization process was not 100% complete. But the DNA is fragmented and difficult to analyze. The older the fossil, the less likely that any of the DNA survives. Paleontologists would be in heaven if they could do DNA tests on their fossils. :)


Ok, so fraud, umm possible, hoax yeah probably that too. But when you say;

I don't understand your question. We can see snapshots in the fossil record of the evolution of humans, chimpanzees and bonobos from that species of chimp-like ape that lived around ten million years ago. How could modern humans have lived at a time when our ancestors had not yet diverged into their descendant species?

Youre talking from an entirely evolutionist perspective, I said assuming its not true (which in all likelihood can be possible, since it is still a theory). Cant it be possible the fossil records mainly consist of ape like creatures now extinct, since DNA testing isnt possible how can scientists be sure there was evolution? Some fossils might be convincing, but isnt it possible, those were fossils of mutated humans? I think its possible. Today there are so many species of apes, and chimps. Naturally more must have existed. Could be the fossils belong to apes/chimps of different species or they could be entirely different species, yet more similiar to humans in physique. Maybe (if humans did exist then) they hunted off all those creatures? They could be competition to humans, but obviously not enough of a match, they probably co existed until humans finished them off (survival of the fittest). And if humans did evolve from chimps, why arent the chimps extinct? Natural selection would only favor the survival of the more adaptable creature, right? But they seem to be thriving even today. Also when you say;

How could modern humans have lived at a time when our ancestors had not yet diverged into their descendant species? This would be like whales living a hundred million years ago.

But I dont see why thats not possible, assuming evolution did not occur. If evolution did occur, if indeed these apes/chimps evolved into the homo genus to the stone age man, then why doesnt it occur now? I mean why dont we come across any such occurences now? By that I mean, has any (obviously on a small scale) mutation (that wasnt harmful, favored better adaptation, the mutated creature was able to reproduce, that gene was inherited, some times passes after several generations more mutations have occured, the offsprings are more different than their ancestors) occured in recent history that would indicate evolution did occur? Chimps have been living for a much longer time than humans, so why hasnt there been any speciation now? We dont see chimps giving birth to creatures that have atleast the smallest of similiarity to humans (through some genetic disorder/mutation). If evolution is true, then there should be speciation happening more frequently, why dont we hear about it? There is so much diversity, mutations must have occurred much more frequently than supposed for so many thousands of animals that exist today (and those extinct). Arguably, speciation takes eons. But its a slow process, so many mutations need to occur, that arent detrimental to their survival, thus we should atleast see some microevolution taking place, right? Seemingly, microevolution seems plausible, but macroevolution is too far-fetched, and if I dont believe in that, then I cant believe in the stone age story. All these points makes it hard for my mind to accept evolution as our reason for existance.:confused:

...I said assuming its [evolution] not true (which in all likelihood can be possible...

Incorrect. Evolution is a fact. The theory of evolution was invented to explain how.

Speciation is usually too slow to see on timescales of hundreds of years. In any case, there is no guarantee that natural selection will make apes more human-like. It could favor the opposite. Selection pressures now are very different than in the past, mostly due to human activity.

Really? I didnt read that anywhere, please post me a link.
I already said that speciation is too slow to be seen, but it would take many favourable mutations for it to occur, right? Do we see any? As far as I studied in biology, one of the seemingly favorable genetic disorder that frequently occurs is haemophilia (i think it was this one, cant remember), for people living in the tropics, it enhances their chances of survival as they are immune to malaria, but its only favorable if youre a recessive (or carrier) obviously its more harmful when dominant. Whether malaria gets you or not, youre chances of survival are less than another normal human. That was the only favorable mutation my teacher could think of to explain not all mutations are harmful when we were studying evolution. So how can evolution occur on the basis of mutation alone?

We do see evidence of changing characteristics of species. Given time, these changes will accumulate so much as to form what we call another species.

http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/2007/09.20/13-lizards.html


The only thing required for speciation is separation or isolation, mostly geological, but it could be cultural or behavioral.

Both of these statements would require citation before any argument can proceed. The shoe sole is, as I recall, a hoax. Here's a site concerned with the investigation of those purportedly human tracks:





The estimate is confirmed from radiodating, among other techniques. I hope you don't assume these numbers are pulled out of the air?



There is no evidence to suggest or indicate such a possibility. There is also no reason to assume that evolution or descent with modification did not occur.



Very, probably.



"Higher", first, is a misnomer. There is no "higher", only more complex, and differences in complexity among species of Homo are minor at best; the majority of difference would be quantitative in brain patterns and behaviour.

DNA indicates high similarity among most of Homo, with something like a 0.5% difference in sequence between Neanderthals and Homo sapiens as I recall. Similarity to chimpanzees - long considered our closest relatives - is lower, with the DNA sequence difference being slightly greater than 1%. With respect to your question about primates being linked to Homo sapiens, this would suggest a high degree of similarity (99%) and, thereby, genetic relationship.


That was an insightful article, thanks. Anyway I was talking about DNA tests of the fossils not chimps, thats been cleared out by FraggleRocker though. BTW, My teacher once mentioned about how so and so percent of our DNA is dormant, and he claimed that these genes were passed on from our ancestors, thus these genes dont function, or arent seen in our makeup. Anyway, since evolution relies on mutation, why hasnt there been a genetic disorder that would make atleast some part, or a single gene from those dormant regions of our DNA to show up? If organisms can evolve into more complex organisms, why cant there be a reversal of their morphological forms, obviously natural selection is a factor, but a remote case perhaps? Is it possible? All kinds of mutations should occur, but in humans we only see mental retardation, blindness, haemophilia, speech problems and other gene disorders, but all these are harmful, so practically, humans can not evolve any further, but theoretically they should.

Some people are born with tails. Inactive genes of chickens have been reactivated to make them grow teeth.

Born with tails? lol really? Do you have any link please? And for the latter too. Anyway, your article doesnt explain evolution, its natural selection, and theres no mutational occurences that brought around any of those changes. These lizards havent evolved into any complexed creatures/lizards, not even in the slightest. There was no introduction of new genes into their gene pool, obviously these genes existed but in a far less amount, natural selection would obviously favor the most adaptable. Theyre still the same, but with different sized legs. BTW is it true lizards evolved from dinosaurs?

Evolution is gradual. It seldom involves introduction of new genes. The variety in the lizard gene pool is the result of favorable mutations over millenia, and natural selection works on them.

I recommend www.talkorigins.org for an explanation of evolution.

That was an insightful article, thanks. Anyway I was talking about DNA tests of the fossils not chimps, thats been cleared out by FraggleRocker though. BTW, My teacher once mentioned about how so and so percent of our DNA is dormant, and he claimed that these genes were passed on from our ancestors, thus these genes dont function, or arent seen in our makeup. Anyway, since evolution relies on mutation, why hasnt there been a genetic disorder that would make atleast some part, or a single gene from those dormant regions of our DNA to show up?

There is. Some chickens, for example, are born with nearly functional teeth, which are presumably from silenced genes inherited from their reptilian ancestors.

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=mutant-chicken-grows-alli

See also:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atavism

If organisms can evolve into more complex organisms, why cant there be a reversal of their morphological forms, obviously natural selection is a factor, but a remote case perhaps?

Some organisms do lose certain structures, but it's probably pretty difficult to "devolve" completely. You'd have to lose all the modern genes and reactivate all the old ones. It's probably easier to have a gene duplication event and gain more derived genetic material than it is to lose that material and turn on the silenced genes.

Is it possible? All kinds of mutations should occur, but in humans we only see mental retardation, blindness, haemophilia, speech problems and other gene disorders, but all these are harmful, so practically, humans can not evolve any further, but theoretically they should.

And they do, almost certainly. Intelligence is probably evolving, also looks. The survival of the disordered in society is because of society's insulation against natural selection. In a selective, naturalistic system they simply wouldn't make it.

Youre talking from an entirely evolutionist perspective, I said assuming its not true which in all likelihood can be possible, since it is still a theory.The scientific canon is built up from theories. They reach the status of being accepted as part of the canon by having a such a small probability of being disproven that, in the language of the American legal system, they are "true beyond a reasonable doubt." This is a good model for science, and it in essence says that to doubt evolution is unreasonable.Cant it be possible the fossil records mainly consist of ape like creatures now extinct, since DNA testing isnt possible how can scientists be sure there was evolution?DNA testing is possible on living organisms and it has taught us almost more about evolution than the fossil record. But taken together, the fossil record and the DNA record are overwhelmingly convincing. We find that modern species that look like they must have all evolved from the same ancient species do in fact have overlapping DNA. It also provides answers to burning questions, such as the one I mentioned previously about the origins of the cetaceans, who turn out to be artiodactyls (hooved animals like pigs, cows and giraffes). It also tells us that the polar bear spun off from the grizzly less than a million years ago, perhaps making it the most recent speciation among large newsworthy animals.Some fossils might be convincing, but isnt it possible, those were fossils of mutated humans? I think its possible. Today there are so many species of apes, and chimps.No there aren't. You need to do more research. Not primary research in the field or the lab, not even secondary research of studying published papers, not even tertiary research at science lectures. Just quaternary research like adding Wikipedia to your bookmarks. There are exactly six species of hominoids, the "Great Apes": humans, chimpanzees, bonobos, orangutans, and the two kinds of gorillas. There are about fifteen or twenty species of gibbons, the "lesser" apes, but they are so distantly related to us that they would not be convincing players in your scenario.Naturally more must have existed. Could be the fossils belong to apes/chimps of different species or they could be entirely different species, yet more similiar to humans in physique.Okay, let's give your hypothesis some respect. Let's say that's not impossible, given what we know about primates. Nonetheless it is extraordinary since it is inconsistent with so much of what we have learned. The scientific method requires you to provide extraordinary substantiation for your extraordinary assertion; no one is required to take it seriously until you do. In other words, you can't just walk around making statements about science. Anybody can do that. Preachers and sci-fi writers do it every day. If you want to prove something extraordinary, you have to actually do science.Maybe (if humans did exist then) they hunted off all those creatures? They could be competition to humans, but obviously not enough of a match, they probably co existed until humans finished them off (survival of the fittest).Pre-stone age humans had no hunting tools and their hunting prowess was modest. Even the spears and traps of the Paleolithic Era did not give our ancestors an overwhelming advantage over their prey. The phenomenon of humans "hunting a species to extinction" is very modern, the result of modern technology. Even so it is rare and invariably works in concert with unfortunate circumstances. The dodo and the moa evolved on islands where there were no predators, so they had no defense mechanisms. As for the mammoths and mastodons, a strong argument has been presented that they were killed off by climate change, not spears. Prehistoric humans could not possibly have hunted to extinction an animal as powerful, intelligent, and well adapted to its environment as an ape!And if humans did evolve from chimps, why arent the chimps extinct? Natural selection would only favor the survival of the more adaptable creature, right?The first humans only survived in one tiny spot in Africa, where the environment favored them. The rest of the region was chimpanzee country. Besides you keep assuming that the creatures that we evolved from were Pan troglodytes, the modern chimpanzee. This is not true. It was an "earlier model" that spun off three lines: humans, chimpanzees and bonobos. That creature is extinct.

Nonetheless, your question, although off-base, is valid. Polar bears evolved from grizzly bears and grizzly bears still exist. I'll leave it as an exercise for you to figure out what conditions the northernmost grizzly bears might have encountered in the arctic region that would have given their cubs with white fur, larger size, quadrupedal posture and increased buoyancy a survival advantage over their litter mates, while in the southern populations that mutation would have died out."How could modern humans have lived at a time when our ancestors had not yet diverged into their descendant species? This would be like whales living a hundred million years ago." But I don't see why that's not possible, assuming evolution did not occur.The body of evidence for evolution is enormous and qualifies as "true beyond a reasonable doubt." If you want to disprove evolution, the first thing you have to do is familiarize yourself with all the evidence so you can mount a respectable argument. You haven't scratched the surface. In the meantime your assertion qualifies as "extraordinary" and to pursue it further without extraordinary substantiation--on one of our science subforums--is a violation of the scientific method and constitutes trolling. Please do your homework. If you want to participate in a science forum you have to adhere to the scientific method. If evolution did occur, if indeed these apes/chimps evolved into the Homo genus to the stone age man, then why doesn't it occur now? I mean why dont we come across any such occurrences now?We've got a major species--the darling of the environmental movement--that arose less than one million years ago. That is an eyeblink in the earth's history. The polar bear's teeth were the last feature to achieve their present form, and that happened about ten thousand years ago, roughly the same time that civilization was being invented. Just how quickly does evolution have to progress for you to be convinced? Mutations and genetic drift are slow processes and in most cases it takes millions of years for their results to show up.By that I mean, has any (obviously on a small scale) mutation (that wasnt harmful, favored better adaptation, the mutated creature was able to reproduce, that gene was inherited, some times passes after several generations more mutations have occured, the offsprings are more different than their ancestors) occured in recent history that would indicate evolution did occur?You want something bigger and more recent than a polar bear? You might have to go find it on a different planet. This is the best we've got here. Sorry. Chimps have been living for a much longer time than humans, so why hasnt there been any speciation now?You just don't understand the gradual nature of evolution. The apes that were the common ancestor of the modern chimpanzee, the bonobo and the human are called "chimps" just for convenience because judging by the fossils they looked a lot more like modern chimps than they looked like us. But they were not the same species as the modern chimpanzee. Until a few decades ago we called bonobos "chimpanzees" because we didn't realize they were a distinct species. Zookeepers tossed them into the same exhibits. The scientific naming of animal species is a painstaking process that occasionally yields mistakes. The popular naming of species is a joke. Just on our own continent we call the bison a buffalo, the manatee a sea cow, one of the pinnipeds a sea lion, and a common rodent the prairie "dog." Don't base any arguments on the fact that we call our ancestral species a "chimp." That's not a scientific name. I don't know what the scientific name is; I'll let you find out as part of your homework. :)We dont see chimps giving birth to creatures that have at least the smallest of similiarity to humans (through some genetic disorder/mutation). If evolution is true, then there should be speciation happening more frequently.Huh??? Why do you say that? That statement makes no sense. We already know that mutation and genetic drift are such slow processes that it takes millions of years for the biosphere to change significantly. We occasionally give birth to baby humans with six fingers. That's pretty remarkable. You'd better appreciate it!Incorrect. Evolution is a fact. The theory of evolution was invented to explain how.Be careful of your terminology when speaking to laymen. "Fact" is not a scientific term. All we have are theories that are "true beyond a reasonable doubt," and I had to borrow the language of attorneys to even be able to put it that concisely. Laymen call such theories "facts," we don't. At least not when we're being rigorous.

I, too, Fraggle, would call evolution a fact. We have laws - the only in all of biology - describing Mendelian segregation and assortment. It is only a small step from there to evolution in the conservative sense; violations thereof are a mere matter of coefficients and no different from gravitational acceleration depending on one's cosmic locale.

Huh??? Why do you say that? That statement makes no sense. We already know that mutation and genetic drift are such slow processes that it takes millions of years for the biosphere to change significantly. We occasionally give birth to baby humans with six fingers. That's pretty remarkable. You'd better appreciate it!

Okay we ve come across this kind of mutation, unfortunately I cant remember what it was called, substitution/replication/addition or something like that, its not like dormant gene was reactivated, or was it? And talking about mutation, did conciousness too come around by that?


Okay, let's give your hypothesis some respect. Let's say that's not impossible, given what we know about primates. Nonetheless it is extraordinary since it is inconsistent with so much of what we have learned. The scientific method requires you to provide extraordinary substantiation for your extraordinary assertion; no one is required to take it seriously until you do. In other words, you can't just walk around making statements about science. Anybody can do that. Preachers and sci-fi writers do it every day. If you want to prove something extraordinary, you have to actually do science.

Youre right about the sci-fi writers part, there was this book I read Winter in Eden, about intelligent reptiles, infact more advanced than humans, and it got me thinking if reptiles have existed since pre historic times too so why havent they evolved into complex creatures like us? Anyway, that was just a thought.


Sorry about the trolling part, but I didnt post in this section of the forum, it was originally in the free thoughts, made more sense. I disagree about the reasonable beyond doubt thing, but I appreciate your taking time out to answer my questions though. I prefer looking at arguements from both sides.


The body of evidence for evolution is enormous and qualifies as "true beyond a reasonable doubt." If you want to disprove evolution, the first thing you have to do is familiarize yourself with all the evidence so you can mount a respectable argument. You haven't scratched the surface. In the meantime your assertion qualifies as "extraordinary" and to pursue it further without extraordinary substantiation--on one of our science subforums--is a violation of the scientific method and constitutes trolling. Please do your homework. If you want to participate in a science forum you have to adhere to the scientific method

Just for the record, I wasnt exactly bringing up any unscientific/religion based claims.

Anyway if youre getting pissed off, I ll just bother you one last time, and we can end this discussion, since sixth grade we ve learned spontaneous generation the idea of living things coming from non living things is impossible, how can we explain that? Wouldnt that negate the idea evolution is beyond a reasonable doubt..?

Okay we ve come across this kind of mutation, unfortunately I cant remember what it was called, substitution/replication/addition or something like that, its not like dormant gene was reactivated, or was it? And talking about mutation, did conciousness too come around by that?

To the latter part: yes. See my link on the chimps.

As for gene reactivation: yes. Pseudogenes do turn on occasionally, I believe. Or, in the short term, methylated genes can become reactivated by demethylation. That's more genotype-by-environment; a better example is that of the loss of eyes in cave dwelling organisms such as cave fish and cave spiders. That's a pretty major set of genes to turn off, too.

Youre right about the sci-fi writers part, there was this book I read Winter in Eden, about intelligent reptiles, infact more advanced than humans, and it got me thinking if reptiles have existed since pre historic times too so why havent they evolved into complex creatures like us? Anyway, that was just a thought.

I've read that too.

Frankly...we actually don't know whether they did or didn't develop a civilization or not. They might have done, or might have been about to do, but for the tiny unforseen issue of the comet that smacked into the Earth about 65 million years ago. There were a few species with large eyes and a large enough brain cavity that they might even have been on track for that, but the comet sort of interrupted their evolutionary track a bit. After that, it was all mammals. Mammals might be a bit more reactive and faster evolvers - within 20 million years or so most of the ecological niches had been filled. That's my call anyway. I'm starting to remember how much I like paleontology.

Anyway if youre getting pissed off, I ll just bother you one last time, and we can end this discussion, since sixth grade we ve learned spontaneous generation the idea of living things coming from non living things is impossible, how can we explain that? Wouldnt that negate the idea evolution is beyond a reasonable doubt..?

Actually, spontaneous generation was used to describe stuff like the appearance of maggots and mice in the Medieval period, which is what this applies to. But it's true that the origin of life would by definition require spontaneous generation; this however occurred only under a select set of conditions which have not been duplicated in the recent past. I'm not an expert on origin of life stuff but there;s a lot of discussion about whether or not life arose once or several times.

I certainly believe in the possibility of ancient civilizations, but creation "science" depends on willful deception, which it always finds acceptable in support of a religious idea.