Scientist: Evolution debate will soon be history

I always found the evolution/creation debate an interesting one. The one prevailing question for me has always been the missing link (or lack there of). We have been so close, yet so far away for a long time. Is the answer creation (god), evolution (natural phenomena), or intervention (alien phenomena).

"If you get to the stage where you can persuade people on the evidence, that it's solid, that we are all African, that color is superficial, that stages of development of culture are all interactive," Leakey says, "then I think we have a chance of a world that will respond better to global challenges."

"If you look back, the thing that strikes you, if you've got any sensitivity, is that extinction is the most common phenomena," Leakey says. "Extinction is always driven by environmental change. Environmental change is always driven by climate change. Man accelerated, if not created, planet change phenomena; I think we have to recognize that the future is by no means a very rosy one."

AP Why does it seem that Leakey seems to be pushing a global warming agenda here. Interesting article none the less. I am by no means an expert in this scientific area, I just thought I would post for the ATS community.

As long as religion exists then the debate about evolution will exist. No matter how much evidence you put before the faithful you will never be able to convince them otherwise.

Have a go at Loyd Pye i think his name is.....Yoo toob.....hes got some heavy things to say and show about the evoution fantasy.......Actualy he goes with Sitchin with better proof than Sitchins speculations.....
Seems that hominids are earth beings born and evoved but humans are a haf breed of two types...hominids and anunaki blood
Hes a very good speaker too i enjoyed his argument immensely.....

.www.youtube.com...

Using evolutionist data he makes his point.....(they shot their foot with the mitochondrial DNA study world wide.....)
Definately hard to argue with his logic too......peace..........s

Originally posted by buster2010
As long as religion exists then the debate about evolution will exist. No matter how much evidence you put before the faithful you will never be able to convince them otherwise.

edit on 26-5-2012 by buster2010 because: (no reason given)

I agree with what you're saying, but there is another angle people have a hard time looking at as well. What if the truth is an intervention/ evolution mix? Now, I'm not taking the position of intervention. All I'm saying is that it's a possibility that intervention could have occurred, and the scientific community has ignored it, just as the religious community has ignored the evolution position. What most struck me as odd was the global warming slant in the article. I may be reading to much into it, but it was the first thing that jumped out at me when reading it.EDIT: stirlings' video illustrates my point exactly. Thanks for the video

this might be a tangent as i did not watch the video/link......but...

in contemplation of God believers say it is 'infinite' or at least beyond any limits we can imagine....


are not those qualities the same or similar of what scientists imagine the universe to be?

reply to post by ratsinacage
You need to clarify what you mean. I think the point you intended to make was sciences understanding of the universe is not much different than religions understanding. As both are infinitely beyond human understanding.

How does Leckey explain the fact that 100 metre sprint podiums are dominated by West Africans and swimming podiums are dominated by whites- that aint a myth explained with convoluted language- if we are all Africans does that mean, I, as a white man, can move to America and claim African American status?

Am I native American?

Originally posted by stirling
Have a go at Loyd Pye i think his name is.....Yoo toob.....hes got some heavy things to say and show about the evoution fantasy.......Actualy he goes with Sitchin with better proof than Sitchins speculations.....
Seems that hominids are earth beings born and evoved but humans are a haf breed of two types...hominids and anunaki blood
Hes a very good speaker too i enjoyed his argument immensely.....

.www.youtube.com...

Using evolutionist data he makes his point.....(they shot their foot with the mitochondrial DNA study world wide.....)
Definately hard to argue with his logic too......peace..........s

edit on 26-5-2012 by stirling because: (no reason given)

Also check out Michael Tellinger. He's done some really interesting research.

Originally posted by Xaphan

Originally posted by stirling
Have a go at Loyd Pye i think his name is.....Yoo toob.....hes got some heavy things to say and show about the evoution fantasy.......Actualy he goes with Sitchin with better proof than Sitchins speculations.....
Seems that hominids are earth beings born and evoved but humans are a haf breed of two types...hominids and anunaki blood
Hes a very good speaker too i enjoyed his argument immensely.....

.www.youtube.com...

Using evolutionist data he makes his point.....(they shot their foot with the mitochondrial DNA study world wide.....)
Definately hard to argue with his logic too......peace..........s

edit on 26-5-2012 by stirling because: (no reason given)

Also check out Michael Tellinger. He's done some really interesting research.

Lloyd Pye is VERY interesting to listen to. I've never heard of Tellinger, so thanks for that. Just checked out the giant foot.

reply to post by stirling


Lloyd Pye is a nut, he has no evidence, and basic logic refutes him. His Starchild stuff is pretty telling, he's a fraudster.

Originally posted by OccamsRazor04
reply to post by stirling

 

Lloyd Pye is a nut, he has no evidence, and basic logic refutes him. His Starchild stuff is pretty telling, he's a fraudster.

For the sake of balance, I have to refute OccamsRazor04.

Pie is an idiot and a fraud. He is after money only.

lol Lloyd Pie ^

Originally posted by blueorder
How does Leckey explain the fact that 100 metre sprint podiums are dominated by West Africans and swimming podiums are dominated by whites- that aint a myth explained with convoluted language- if we are all Africans does that mean, I, as a white man, can move to America and claim African American status?

Am I native American?

So, your argument against the idea that all humans originated on the continent of Africa millions of years ago is that whites are good at swimming and blacks at running?

Seriously?

reply to post by GD21D

Good thread. Two points:

The one prevailing question for me has always been the missing link (or lack there of).

The commonplace concept of a "missing link" is a fallacy. It's based on an outmoded concept of evolution that resembles a linear progression of species, or a "chain". The reality is that it resembles a bush or a tree, and even that is something of an oversimplification. So what you should really be asking for are transitional fossils, of which there are many, and common ancestors, of which there are many. If you're specifically looking for ones in our own lineage, it's believed that the divergence of genus Homo from genus Australopithecus occurred via A. sediba i.e. A sediba is our last common ancestor with genus Australopithecus. Within our own genus, it's believed that our last common ancestor with H. neanderthalensis was H. rhodesiensis.

Why does it seem that Leakey seems to be pushing a global warming agenda here. Interesting article none the less.

Can you call it "pushing an agenda" when it's the conclusion drawn by your field of research?

Originally posted by blueorder
How does Leckey explain the fact that 100 metre sprint podiums are dominated by West Africans and swimming podiums are dominated by whites- that aint a myth explained with convoluted language- if we are all Africans does that mean, I, as a white man, can move to America and claim African American status?

Am I native American?

Unfortunately this post definitely shows that not all humans have evolved.....

reply to post by iterationzero
I agree with your concept of the missing link or links as it should be put. Point being is that the puzzle has not been fully assembled yet, we're still missing some important pieces. If we had all the pieces there would be no debate. As far as the global warming issue. Is it his field of expertise? How did he go from the evolution debate is nearing an end to global warming is man induced and we need to get everyone on the same page. In my personal opinion man does have some responsibility in the warming of the planet. To what severity is the real debate. I understand global climate changes could factor into extinction level events. Just because it's part of his field doesn't mean he's an expert in the climate field. I'm not challenging your points, as the way you articulate yourself shows you know more about this area than myself. It just struck me as odd that it was a key point he made.

reply to post by GD21D

I agree with your concept of the missing link or links as it should be put. Point being is that the puzzle has not been fully assembled yet, we're still missing some important pieces. If we had all the pieces there would be no debate.

We will never have all of the pieces. Fossil formation is rare, which was even recognized in Darwin's time. When you look at where the evidence for evolution really comes from, fossil evidence is a relative small part of it. The majority of the evidence for evolution is genetic. Even in the complete absence of the fossil record, modern evolutionary synthesis would still be the dominant theory explaining biodiversity by a wide margin.

As far as the global warming issue. Is it his field of expertise? How did he go from the evolution debate is nearing an end to global warming is man induced and we need to get everyone on the same page. In my personal opinion man does have some responsibility in the warming of the planet. To what severity is the real debate. I understand global climate changes could factor into extinction level events. Just because it's part of his field doesn't mean he's an expert in the climate field.

I think he sums up his chain of logic pretty well himself:

"If you look back, the thing that strikes you, if you've got any sensitivity, is that extinction is the most common phenomena," Leakey says. "Extinction is always driven by environmental change. Environmental change is always driven by climate change. Man accelerated, if not created, planet change phenomena; I think we have to recognize that the future is by no means a very rosy one."

I don't think he's claiming to be a climate change expert, just outlining the effects of climate change on evolution via extinction events. Climate change is an accepted fact in the scientific community at large. Here's an interesting blog post from NPR about the "controversy" over climate change: Climate, Controversy and Strangers on a Plane

I's argue that the "controversy" over evolution is even less significant than that of climate change -- the controversy is in the details, not over whether or not it happens. Sure, you can talk about the Discovery Institute's list of scientists that signed a statement refuting that Darwinian evolution could wholly explain biodiversity. But when you realize that it's a small fraction of one percent of scientists that have signed that statement, you start to get a better grasp of the distinct lack of "controversy".

I'm sorry but frankly speaking...... Evolution is just as absurd as religion and both are broken theory's as it pertains to our sorted past.

reply to post by Helious


Hi.

Can you please detail how evolution is a 'broken theory'?

Thanks.

Originally posted by stanguilles7
reply to post by Helious

 

Hi.

Can you please detail how evolution is a 'broken theory'?

Thanks.

Uh, sure. It doesn't explain any of THESE in point of fact, science often times just ignores things that it can't explain and that's a big problem when you seek truth.

Ah, I know the old tired routine where you tell me science has no agenda and theory and facts and blah blah blah. It's old and doesn't hold up under scrutiny. When scientists stop working for universities who have a figure head who reports to donors and share holders talk to me....

When scientist are allowed to express there own opinion other than what has been formulated for them without being labeled a heretic or kook by the establishment talk to me. There is too small of a window with what is allowed to be spoken or thought within the science world lest you risk your lifes work and in that fact and because of it, science is currently broken as it comes to describing human history. Evolution included.

Before you say anything I would like you too think of four words and just how silly they are. "Dark matter" and "Big bang" lol, it's funny to even say them and then think about science seriously....