I’m not sure what you’re saying I’m misinformed about, JohnMace. Anyway, I’m saying there’s a difference between theory and fieldwork, because the theory of evolution doesn’t speculate about the age of man or anything else as far as I know.
Lander, your new post indicates you may still not be getting this. Evidence of man’s ancestors from millions of years ago does exist. Are you asking “what would happen if a skeleton resembling modern man but dating from millions of years ago was found?” Personally, I don’t know. All theories are subject to revision pending new findings, that’s the way science works. The theory would be revised, I don’t know how particularly.
I already summed up what the theory says, however adequately or inadequately. You could say that’s an implication, though I’m not sure we’re clueless (as you suggest) regarding exactly when or ‘through what chain.’
The term “man” is a bit too vague to use in an evolutionary sense, so it makes your question hard to answer. If evidence of Homo sapiens is found from earlier dates, the Human family tree will be updated (after a LOT of debate among anthropologists), but the theory of evolution will not be affected.
Your summary of evolution was quite good. I’d only modify the “no-one knows when or through what chain” to “we only have a partial understanding of the chain thru which all living species came into being”. We actually have a pretty good handle on a lot of the details for quite a few animals.
I didn’t say that evolution did not have facts to support it, and I am certain I never even mentioned creationism. Nor did I claim that science is a religion. My points were that 1, most people who say they think evolution is correct, or accept evolution, have not examined any of the facts, in fact most do not really understand the concept very clearly, they are accepting it on the basis of authority, or to put it another way, on faith. And 2, that once you accept something on faith, be it science or God, there’s not much difference between the two.
Put it more clearly, you may not bow down and pray to Science, or offer sacrifice to it, but if you’re willing to accept something on the basis that it is “Science”, without critical examination, then we’re just quibbling over naming conventions. In that case Science=Religion.
I wasn’t saying you’re a creationist, I’m saying it’s a specious argument and that they sometimes use it. Accepting something uncritically is stupid, but it’s the fault of the person accepting it in that case, not the fault of science as a whole, whatever that might be. I’m not sure exactly what you’re arguing at this point- what is the relevance of that to this discussion?
Yeah, shouldn’t have gone off on you like that. Apologies.
Just really a few nitpicks about your post.
Homo sapiens hasn’t been around for 2M yrs. Go back 2M yrs and you and I are Homo erectus (or some varient of that species).
The term H. sapiens sapiens is really not used much anymore. It goes back to the days when Neanderthals were thought to be a subspecies of H. sapiens. These days, most (although not all) anthropoligists relegate Neanderthals to their own species, H. neanderthalensis, which leaves us w/ H. sapiens all by ourselves.
Evolution is not a set of presupposed guesses, into which we are trying to fit whatever evidence suits us (that would be Creationism), evolution is a theory to explain the evidence we’ve already found, whether we like that evidence or not.
If we suddenly discovered the remains of a 50 million year old software developer, we’d need to seriously rethink how we view evolution, to be sure. Such an event would need to be reconciled with all that we currently know. And a bright new shiny version of the theory would emerge.
News articles like the following don’t help the situation… Bush administration drops probe of Darwinist teacher.
I’m not even referring to the subject matter of the article, which has already been discussed in another thread. What bothers me about this article is how it uses the term “Darwinist” several times to refer to the professor. WTF??? We don’t refer to people as “Newtonists” or “Einsteinists”. It also describes him as “a university professor who is actively promoting Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution” as if this is something unusual that sets him apart. Well duh, the guy’s a BIOLOGIST, so you can assume by default that he probably believes in and teaches evolution. It’s the biologists who don’t believe it that are the renegades. We don’t describe a physicist as " a university professor who is actively promoting the theory of gravity". Am I reading too much into this? Am I the only one who’s bothered by the way it’s worded?
The relevance to the discussion is the OP’s original post along the lines of “these are the 4 reasons people reject evolution”.
My point, jeez this can’t be that hard, is that some people reject evolution because they have already accepted an alternate view. And their reasons for accepting that alternate view are no different than the reasons a lot people accept evolution.
Is this stupid? You’re saying that, I am not. I think it is unwise, but then again evolution or creationism have very little to do with most people’s everyday lives. So I am not faulting anyone who doesn’t spend a few years of studying the subject to come to their own conclusions, and instead choose to accept one view or the other on faith.
And where did I say anything about “science as a whole” being at fault for anything? Let’s keep the arguments to what each of us says please.
Evolution is a fascinating subject. Personally, I can’t think of one that is more interesting-- especially as it applies to us. There are lots of good books out there, but Stephen J. Gould has written quite a few good ones and you could do a lot worse than picking up almost anyone of his works to get started. I don’t agree at all with his politics, but he’s pretty good about keeping that aspect to a minimum in his books.
Oh, if you do look up his books on Amazon or somthing, stay away from his most recent one (before his death). It’s called something like “The Structure of Evolutionary Theory”, unless you’re ready for a really thick text book type read. Otherwise go for one of his older ones (The Flamingo’s Smile, The Panda’s Thumb, The Neck of the Giraffe, etc.).
Some random brain droppings on the question “When did man first appear?”
Punctuated equalibrium aside, nearly any answer can be justified. It depends on how one defines the parameters of the question. One could say that the first mammal that appeared tens of millions of years ago was the first proto-human, and everything since was merely an upgrade. By the same logic, one could say that the first bacteria was man’s start. If we are talking about modern man, I would say that babies born this past week are the first appearance of the truly modern.
Alright, I see where you’re going with that bit. Took me a while for whatever reason. If people accept things on faith, you can take the perspective that science can sort of function as a religion. I think the way you phrased it made it sound as if this was a failing of science (that was the ‘science as a whole’ bit), because science shouldn’t be used it such a way. If science can ever substitute for religion, that’s a failing that belongs to individuals. Religion, on the other hand, is supposed to fuction as a religion, so that’s it’s own fault from where I sit. Maybe it’s me.
Unfortunately, there is such a thing a Scientism, and it runs pretty rampant. Science as a religion. But keep in mind that all ideas have nutzo followers. Music has groupies. Religion has reactionary fundies. And quantum physics has free radicals. What are ya gonna do?
Chances are that it was not old info from theorists of evolution, because I don’t think there was ever a period after 1900s when scientists thought that modern man, and certainly not upright alkin bipeds with big skulls, was only 10,000 years old. Again, that’s the approximate date for the very first evidence of human civilizations, start of language, etc.
Apos: Surely you mean start of WRITING, not start of LANGUAGE, right? THere’s enough misinformation floating around this thread, pardon me if I’m going after typos or slips of tongue.
Addressing tdn’s OP, I’ve responded to a similar inquiry earlier. And on retrospect, I realize that the “reason” is even more basic than what I had posted.
I was also mystified why the religeous are SO against the possibility of evolution. And what I had found was that it has to do with the existence of the soul. IF evolution is true, then there is no real fundamental difference (made in the image of God, etc.) between humans and all other animals on the planet. But only humans can have souls, so there must be a difference.
However, I think this is only an easy way to “formalize” the more basic reason people would not want to be considered no different than other animals (on a fundamental, organic basis). And that is ego. People simply are not comfortable with the concept of not being fundamentally “superior” to all the other animals on the planet. And I think this is the basis for coming up with concepts like souls, and what happens to them after we die, that are supposedly unique to humans.
That is, “different” isn’t good enough. There is this insecurity about being fundamentally “superior”.
Maybe it’s me.