NationStates Jolt Archive

Ancient Animal Could Be Human-Ape Ancestor

By DIEDTRA HENDERSON, AP Science Writer

WASHINGTON - A nearly 13 million-year-old ape discovered in Spain is the last probable common ancestor to all living humans and great apes, a research team says in Friday's issue of Science magazine.

A husband-and-wife team of fossil sleuths unearthed an animal with a body like an ape, fingers like a chimp and the upright posture of humans. The ancient ape bridges the gap between earlier, primitive animals and later, modern creatures.


This newest ape species, Pierolapithecus catalaunicus, is so significant that it adds a new page to ancient human history.

Rest of the story at:

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=1894&e=1&u=/ap/20041118/ap_on_sc/human_ancestor

It is difficult to see how reasonable, thinking individuals can continue to deny the facts of human evolution.

because its not the reasonable ones denying it

Individual thought. We all think differently, and we all make rationalizations for our own beliefs.

What I don't understand is why heavily religious people attack evolution.

Evolution is not atheism. It's a scientific theory.

Why aren't heavily religious people attacking Einstein's theory of relativity?

What I don't understand is why heavily religious people attack evolution.

Evolution is not atheism. It's a scientific theory.

Why aren't heavily religious people attacking Einstein's theory of relativity?

Perhaps because Time and Space both exist, yet none of his teachings go beyond a specifically scientific stand-point?

Eh, I dunno really. Einstien was a smart one I'll give him that.

the reason that creationalists dislike the theory of evolution is due to the way in which it threatens there belife structure. basicaly its like someone coming along and saying that strait from the start the ENTIRE text which your religion is based upon can be disproved by modern science.

the thory of relativity is based upon physics not biology. most religons would have to work damm hard to find a way that physics disproves there religious belifs in such a blatent manner (ok so im ignoring the way in which the universe was formed for now) the thory of relativity is (if my somewhat poor memory serves) the relationship between mass end energy. this does not affect peoples belifs (if they do please tell me so i can TRY to work out how)

the biological sciences are finding out ways in which the natural world evolves without the mythical hand of god changing it which aain threatens the religious hold

Perhaps because Time and Space both exist, yet none of his teachings go beyond a specifically scientific stand-point?

Eh, I dunno really. Einstien was a smart one I'll give him that.

Neither does the theory of evolution. It is based on facts, as is done in the world of science. Religion is not something that scientists deal in. I still don't see why a few religious people think evolution is against God, it's not. It makes no mention of the subject and does not either proclaim or deny the existance of God.

Matter also exists. Genetics also exist. Evolution can be seen happening in certain rapidly reproducing, less complex species.

Oh, and, before anyone gets the ridiculous idea that I'm an Atheist, I'd like to state that I am a Christian.

Neither does the theory of evolution. It is based on facts, as is done in the world of science. Religion is not something that scientists deal in. I still don't see why a few religious people think evolution is against God, it's not. It makes no mention of the subject and does not either proclaim or deny the existance of God.

Matter also exists. Genetics also exist. Evolution can be seen happening in certain rapidly reproducing, less complex species.

Oh, and, before anyone gets the ridiculous idea that I'm an Atheist, I'd like to state that I am a Christian.
Agreed.

Neither does the theory of evolution. It is based on facts, as is done in the world of science. Religion is not something that scientists deal in. I still don't see why a few religious people think evolution is against God, it's not. It makes no mention of the subject and does not either proclaim or deny the existance of God.

Matter also exists. Genetics also exist. Evolution can be seen happening in certain rapidly reproducing, less complex species.

Oh, and, before anyone gets the ridiculous idea that I'm an Atheist, I'd like to state that I am a Christian.

The only reason I challenge it is because of the people who treat it as much of a gospel as we treat the story of Christ. It isn't scientifically proven and, though the evidence suggests it, science may not have enough evidence yet or may be misinterpreting the evidence. Luckily, science can adapt if it is wrong.

The only reason I challenge it is because of the people who treat it as much of a gospel as we treat the story of Christ. It isn't scientifically proven and, though the evidence suggests it, science may not have enough evidence yet or may be misinterpreting the evidence. Luckily, science can adapt if it is wrong.
Why yes, it is good to challenge all scientific theories, do more research, etc. Many theories scientists have had over the years have turned out to be very, very wrong.

However, the challenge should come from within the scientific community, not from the churches.

And jumping back to creationism to "combat" evolution is frankly rediculous.

Yes. Using something that has NO scientific evidence to try to disprove something that DOES is ludicrous. Anyway, there is a mountain of evidence supporting the theory of evolution, genetics, the huge amount of archeological evidence, the fact that you can see it happening, etc.

A "theory" in science is far different from a "theory" in law. In science, a theory that has been upheld with evidence, and which no one has succeeded in disproving, is basically accepted as fact. Something that is just an educated guess, a good idea, is called a "hypothesis." The law of gravity, for instance, is really "only" a theory. It is supported by a collossal amount of evidence, yes, but all this could only be coincidental, and it could be something else entirely that forces things to fall to the earth. However, because of the inconcievable amount of evidence supporting it, and the complete lack of evidence supporting any competing hypothesis, we accept Gravity as fact. I find it to be much the same with evolution.