[Rachel Bronwyn]

I tend to think religion originated from early human?s absolute lack of understanding of the world. When something they didn?t understand (which was pretty much anything) occurred, they assumed it had to be the result of a conscious being making a decision and acting upon it. Why else would the tide come and go or the sun rise of lightening flash?

Early on some clever sons of bitches realised human?s belief in this all-powerful supernatural being was easy to manipulate and did so in order to enforce particular behaviours. People are a whole lot less likely to fart in public or wear white after Labour Day when they believe the dude that makes bolts of fire shoot down from the skies doesn`t approve of it and will give you a licking. He`s a tough, venegeful guy! And so religious doctrine came into play.

In an attempt to save their loved ones from harm, people quickly began to indoctrinate children into religion. At a time mythological stories sounded somewhat reasonable and alternative answers to life`s big questions weren`t available, making people believe it and teach it to their children was easy. And so religion was bred into the species.

Originally Posted by genderhazard

The links were jokes.

I realise that. I didn?t realise you were at all serious when you posed your ?challenge? though.

Mitochondrial DNA exists
Mitochondrial Eve exists.
Her offspring exists in an unbroken chain of female decendants.
Mitochondrial Eve contemporaries exists.
Ardi exists.
Lucy exists.

I?ve no idea who this mitochondrial Eve is. You?ll have to expand on this notion prior to my responding. As of right now, I don?t know if mitochondrial Eve exists or if her offspring exist through her descendants or if her contemporaries exist.

Show me evolution of species.

Do your own homework.

There is a reason evolution is a theory and not a scientific law

And that?s because it can?t be observed. The scientific method will never allow for evolution to become fact or ?law?, not because of missing evidence, but because of the simple fact it?s an extremely extensive process that cannot be viewed. Evolution of a species takes a fucking long time. Watching a land mammal become aquatic is not possible. It is possible, however, to find extensive evidence of this process, hence the legitimacy of evolution.

Translation: The things we thought we knew about evoultion were completely wrong.

No, no, no, no., no, no, no, no, no, no. The things people who think they understand evolution know are completely wrong.

You?ll note this discovery has not shaken the evolutionary theory at all as it leaves plenty of room for what Ardi teaches us to occur.

Rather than humans evolving from an ancient chimp-like creature, the new find provides evidence that chimps and humans evolved from some long-ago common ancestor - but each evolved and changed separately along the way.

Pardon my valley girl-ism but, well, duh. Very few species are perfect. As their environments change, species adapt to them via natural selection. As desirable genetic mutations are perpetuated via natural selection, species change. Slowly, evolution occurs, more in some species than others.

Did you think the chimpanzee was immune to evolution? That we evolved from modern day chimps? Of course not. Chimpanzees have evolved alongside us. We didn't evolve from them anymore than they evolved from us. Our common ancestor simply evolved in very different directions. Sharing a common ancestor, however, does not equate to evolving from a particular species.

but Ardi isn't that common ancestor, just another member of the genius

I fail to see how she?s ?just? anything. She?s a member of the family.

But Ardi has many traits that do not appear in modern-day African apes, leading to the conclusion that the apes evolved extensively since we shared that last common ancestor.

Yes, and there?s no reason to presume Ardi?s ancestors hadn?t evolved extensively and were completely different from she.

The fact remains, we share a common ancestor.

So that's what they conclude? (here's the best of all scientifc queston?) why? "Ardi has many traits that do not appear in modern-day African apes". Well clearly that can only mean that the apes evolved extensively."

Why wouldn?t they have? Evolution is fluid, not static. That makes perfect evolutionary sense.

How about you found an extinct hominid.

It?s possible but the same can be said for all other no longer existing animals for which we have fossils. The idea all these creatures died off as opposed to evolved from their previous forms is creationist and entirely non-sensical as it doesn?t begin to take the fossil record into account.

Ardi fits into our family tree beautifully, between CLCA and Australopithecus. That?s why the primary conclusion scientists are coming to is chimp ancestry goes back further than we?d predicted. Thank you, new findings!

Homo floresiensis is the one that leaves the door wide open for the extinct hominid argument. That is a fossil extremely difficult to fit into any particular evolutionary tree. Ardi, not so much.