More

Australopithecus Sediba Bones: South Africa Discovery Offers Evolution 'Game-Changer'

RANDOLPH E. SCHMID   09/ 8/11 06:00 PM ET   AP

WASHINGTON — Two million-year-old bones belonging to a creature with both apelike and human traits provide the clearest evidence of evolution's first major step toward modern humans – findings some are calling a potential game-changer.

An analysis of the bones found in South Africa suggests Australopithecus sediba is the most likely candidate to be the ancestor of humans, said lead researcher Lee R. Berger of the University of Witwatersrand in South Africa.

The fossils, belonging to a male child and an adult female, show a novel combination of features, almost as though nature were experimenting. Some resemble pre-human creatures while others suggest the genus Homo, which includes Homo sapiens, modern people.

"It's as if evolution is caught in one vital moment, a stop-action snapshot of evolution in action," said Richard Potts, director of the human origins program at the Smithsonian Institution. He was not among the team, led by South African scientists, whose research was published online Thursday in the journal Science.

Scientists have long considered the Australopithecus family, which includes the famous fossil Lucy, to be a primitive candidate for a human ancestor. The new research establishes a creature that combines features of both groups.

The newly studied bones were found in 2008 in the fossil-rich cave region of Malapa near Johannesberg. Berger's then 9-year-old son, Matthew, found a bone that was determined to belong to the child. Two weeks later Berger uncovered the fossils of the female.

The journal published five papers detailing the findings, including separate reports on the foot, hand, pelvis and brain of A. sediba.

Berger said the brain, hand and foot have characteristics of both modern and early pre-human forms that show a transition under way. It represents a bona fide model that could lead to the human genus Homo, Berger said.

Kristian J. Carlson, also at Witwatersrand, said the brain of A. sediba is small, like that of a chimpanzee, but with a configuration more human, particularly with an expansion behind and above the eyes.

This seems to be evidence that the brain was reorganizing along more modern lines before it began its expansion to the current larger size, Carlson said in a teleconference.

"It will take a lot of scrutiny of the papers and of the fossils by more and more researchers over the coming months and years, but these analyses could well be `game-changers' in understanding human evolution," according to the Smithsonian's Potts.

So, does all this mean A. sediba was the "missing link"?

Well, scientists don't like that term, which Berger calls "biologically unsound."

This is a good candidate to represent the evolution of humans, he said, but the earliest definitive example of Homo is 150,000 to 200,000 years younger.

Scientists prefer the terms "transition form" or "intermediary form," said Darryl J. DeRuiter of Texas A&M University.

"This is what evolutionary theory would predict, this mixture of Australopithecene and Homo," DeRuiter said. "It's strong confirmation of evolutionary theory."

But it's not yet an example of the genus Homo, he said, though it could have led to several early human forms, including Homo habilis, Homo rudolfensis or Homo erectus – all considered early distant cousins to man, Homo sapiens.

These articles "force a rethinking of how traits are coupled together in human evolution," the Smithsonian's Potts said in an email from Kenya, where he is doing research.

"For example, in previous definitions of our genus, the leading edge in the emergence of Homo has been brain enlargement. The sediba bones show, however, that reorganization of the brain and pelvis typically connected with the evolution of Homo need not have involved brain enlargement," he noted.

"The more we learn about human evolution, the more we see that traits" that must have happened together could occur separately, Potts said.

For example, the study of the hand shows that major changes in the thumb usually associated with toolmaking "did not imply abandoning life in the trees. In the foot article, we're introduced to a unique and previously unknown combination of archaic and advanced traits in sediba," Potts explained.

The researchers reported that the fingers of A. sediba were curved, as might be seen in a creature that climbed in trees. But they were also slim and the thumb was long, more like a Homo thumb, so the hand was potentially capable of using tools, though no tools were found at the site.

The fossil provides the first chance for researchers to evaluate the function of a full hand this old, said Tracy Kivell of the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Germany. Previously, hand bones older than Neanderthals have been isolated pieces rather that full sets.

The heel bone seems primitive, the researchers said. Yet its front is angled, suggesting an arched foot for walking on the ground, and there is a large attachment for an Achilles tendon as in modern humans, they said.

The pelvis is short and broad like a human pelvis, creating more of a bowl shape than in earlier Australopith fossils like the famous Lucy, explained Job Kibii of the University of the Witwatersrand.

That may force a re-evaluation of the process of evolution because many researchers had previously associated development of a human-like pelvis with enlargement of the brain, but in A. sediba the brain was still small.

The name Australopithecus means "southern ape," and "sediba" means natural spring, fountain or wellspring in the local Sotho language.

After the bones were discovered, the children of South Africa were invited to name the child, which they called "Karabo," meaning "answer" in the local Tswana language. The older skeleton has not yet been given a nickname, Berger said.

The juvenile would have been aged 10 to 13 in terms of human development; the female was in her 20s and there are indications that she may have given birth once. The researchers are not sure if the two were related.

___

Online:

http://www.sciencemag.org

FOLLOW HUFFPOST GREEN

WASHINGTON — Two million-year-old bones belonging to a creature with both apelike and human traits provide the clearest evidence of evolution's first major step toward modern humans – find...
WASHINGTON — Two million-year-old bones belonging to a creature with both apelike and human traits provide the clearest evidence of evolution's first major step toward modern humans – find...
Filed by Chris Gentilviso  | 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 11,396
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Bloggers
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (78 total)
Ana4
neutrino alert, just passing through
04:09 PM on 11/05/2011
The anti-science evolution deniers here are a tenacious breed who don't mind badgering people in an unrepentant way, insisting that evolution is a hoax. It follows a religio-political agenda. One thing (among many) I've discovered in conversation with evangelicals is that when they ask for "proof" and "fact" they are holding out for a Biblical reference, and are not interested in scientific data. When they ask for "truth" it reminds me of Professor Quirrell in Harry Potter 1.
02:49 AM on 10/18/2011
This is interesting because we are getting closer of understanding our prehistoric past, and a new chapter to start writing about until we find another interesting example of our ancient past.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
08:12 PM on 10/14/2011
I am proud to be a hairless ape. All hail our simian ancestors.
photo
Blodo
Time to build a better world
06:27 PM on 10/18/2011
I agree. Human foibles are much easier to understand when we see and accept that we are just a bunch of overachieving tree shrews.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
DakkonA
www.DisentangledReality.com
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Eclipse33
06:50 PM on 10/14/2011
Sounds like every works according to PLAN!

The change you mention is actually, throwing everything off schedule. That would impact any construction plans.

What do YOU say?
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
DakkonA
www.DisentangledReality.com
11:57 AM on 10/15/2011
Huh? If you change the timing of developmental events, you don't get the same outcome.
photo
Maezeppa
Happy-Happy Joy-Joy
07:10 PM on 10/18/2011
We say that, per usual, you are more interested in snark than science.
photo
Kache
Toodlum, wake up, I hear a prowler downstairs
01:56 PM on 10/14/2011
Remember the pictures you saw in school of how the motion of the moon and sun explain the phases of the moon. Well guess what - it's just a theory. No one has went off to a place in space and sat there for a month to witness whether it really works like those pictures. It's just a theory.

For hundreds of thousands of years humans have postulated thousands of explanations for the phases of the moon. None of them made as much sense as the pictures you saw in school. We accept the pictures because it's concept is logical, not because we've witnessed it.

Intelligent Design compares to the idea that the moon's phases are caused by the moon goddess's moods.
photo
Blodo
Time to build a better world
06:29 PM on 10/18/2011
I heard it was connected to the periodic ripening of the green cheese.
photo
Kache
Toodlum, wake up, I hear a prowler downstairs
06:39 PM on 10/18/2011
Yes - Intelligent Design is indeed connected to the ripening of cheese. Also, goat entrails and tea leaves.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
behavingbadly
reality doesn't care what you believe
11:55 AM on 10/14/2011
If the world and the universe as we know it are the work of an omnipotent, all-powerful, intelligent designer, he was clearly not giving his best effort ... the place is a mess.
photo
Kache
Toodlum, wake up, I hear a prowler downstairs
12:14 PM on 10/14/2011
Unintelligent Design. I suspect Fred was the designer.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Eclipse33
06:52 PM on 10/14/2011
If you go and mess up a new house, is it the designers fault?
photo
Maezeppa
Happy-Happy Joy-Joy
11:00 AM on 10/15/2011
Yes.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
DakkonA
www.DisentangledReality.com
11:58 AM on 10/15/2011
When the designer is responsible for both you and the house, yes.
photo
Maezeppa
Happy-Happy Joy-Joy
05:52 PM on 10/12/2011
" ID is essentially a hoax, however, [...] . ID is proposed mainly by Christian apologists at the Discovery Institute and their allies, who oppose the science of evolution because it threatens their hidebound, literalistic view of Bible stories. The approach of the Discovery Institute to scientific discoveries that contradict their literal understanding of the Bible is reminiscent of the early twentieth-century organization known as the World Association of Christian Fundamentalists." http://bit.ly/phvoMr
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Eclipse33
11:59 AM on 10/13/2011
Been looking at some of your anti ID links.

I could not help to notice that those site ARE ALL OUT OF DATE. Many reference clearly out dated information. The latest information completely destroys their claims against ID and actually validates what ID has said all along.

It seems to prove that the IDers are the better scientist!
photo
Maezeppa
Happy-Happy Joy-Joy
12:31 PM on 10/13/2011
Not out of date at all. What was true about IDers ten years ago is true today. There is no new information that validates ID, which was invalidated as a science about 200 years ago and remains a dishonest pseudoscience-cum-conservative political tactic.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
03:15 PM on 10/13/2011
"I could not help to notice that those site ARE ALL OUT OF DATE".

In what respect? Are you really SO stupid as to think that because a paper or article is a few years old it automatically become "out of date"? Watson and Crick's paper on the structure of DNA was written in 1953. Is that "out of date"? Maxwells' equations unifying electricity and magnetism are over a hundred years old. Are they out of date? Every time you post a comment you just make yourself look more stupid. And illiterate.
Show us specifically where the arguments in these articles have been disproved. Actually disproved, not just attacked by rabid Creationists.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Eclipse33
02:29 PM on 10/13/2011
Again, your wishful thinking. You seem to be operating under multiple delusions - one is that complexity is evidence of an intelligen­t designer. It's not. The other is that primitive organisms never existed, not 3.7 billion years ago and not today. Wrong and wrong.”

More importantly. Complexity is prove of NO evolution and a MUCH younger earth.

I gave you proof of 3.7 billion year old complexity, where is your proof, or is it poof.
photo
Maezeppa
Happy-Happy Joy-Joy
02:40 PM on 10/13/2011
Complexity fits comfortably within evolution and a 3.7 billion year old earth. The ancestors of modern bacteria were single-cell microorganisms and in fact, for about 3 billion years, all organisms on earth were microscopic, with bacteria and archaea being the dominant life forms. All species we see today decended via evolution from these primitive (a word you need to look up in the dictionary) unicellular organisms.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
DakkonA
www.DisentangledReality.com
04:01 PM on 10/13/2011
"Complexity is prove of NO evolution and a MUCH younger earth."

These two claims are contradictory. Either early life was (according to you) too complex to have occurred in the short time prior to its existence, or it is complex because it wasn't actually as long ago as we think.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
01:48 PM on 10/12/2011
For those who have been interested in the detailed explanations and actual evidence that strongly indicates the presence of an Intelligent Designer... The Institute for Creation Research is a good place to start:) One of the researchers in the study of Biology and its beginning at Creation is Dr. Randy Guliuzza... who retired as Lt. Col. from the U.S. Air Force, where he served as Flight Surgeon and Chief of Aerospace Medicine. He is the author of "Made in His Image: Examining the complexities of the human body". Even the leaders in the field of "evolutionary theory"... which was actually the title of Stephen Gould's last publication... never present the hypothesis of evolution as fact. Even though there are over 2 million species of God's Creation available... most of Gould's study was done on snails. Again, one only has to look around at the incredible diversity in colors and designs in nature in order to begin to realize that... since cells and genes do not have "brains"... an Intelligent Designer was necessary to create all that is on the Earth... in the air... out in space... and under our feet:) Institute for Creation Research: http://www.icr.org/
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
DakkonA
www.DisentangledReality.com
02:29 PM on 10/12/2011
Information theory is bunk because it ignores known mechanisms of evolution that allow proteins with previous functions to come together for a novel function and then lose the original function.
photo
Maezeppa
Happy-Happy Joy-Joy
05:47 PM on 10/12/2011
Evolution is not hypothetical. Evolution is a fact. Evolutionary theory is a scientific body of knowledge describing the fact of evolution, as Gould eloquently restated. There is no evidence of an "intelligent designer". ID is a religious belief That's why the creationists keep losing in the laboratories, in the courts, and in the school curricula. ID was invalidated about 200 years ago, even before Darwin published. Nobody has ever presented evidence of ID in the intervening centuries. Creationists are persistent liars.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Eclipse33
11:30 AM on 10/13/2011
Maezeppa, I have posted link after link that contains data that clearly proves evolution did not happen. In fact, they ALL so that life, was actually more complex in the past. This IS consistent with the Biblical creation account in Genesis.

Get out of your CULT. Evolution did NOT happen and IS NOT possible.
photo
Maezeppa
Happy-Happy Joy-Joy
10:57 AM on 10/12/2011
"In the American vernacular, "theory" often means "imperfect fact"--part of a hierarchy of confidence running downhill from fact to theory to hypothesis to guess. Thus the power of the creationist argument: evolution is "only" a theory and intense debate now rages about many aspects of the theory. If evolution is worse than a fact, and scientists can't even make up their minds about the theory, then what confidence can we have in it? Indeed, President Reagan echoed this argument before an evangelical group in Dallas when he said (in what I devoutly hope was campaign rhetoric): "Well, it is a theory. It is a scientific theory only, and it has in recent years been challenged in the world of science--that is, not believed in the scientific community to be as infallible as it once was." Well evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered. Moreover, "fact" doesn't mean "absolute certainty"; there ain't no such animal in an exciting and complex world. The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us falsely for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms. Evolutionists have been very clear about this distinction of fact and theory from the very beginning, if only because we have always acknowledged how far we are from completely understanding the mechanisms (theory) by which evolution (fact) occurred. Darwin continually emphasized the difference between his two great and separate accomplishments: establishing the fact of evolution, and proposing a theory--natural selection--to explain the mechanism of evolution." - Stephen J. Gould,
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Eclipse33
06:37 PM on 10/12/2011
Evolution is a FALSE conclusion of the data.
1. Amber fossil records show extant species that are millions of years (based on radio metric strata dates). Evolutionist weasel out by claiming they are "well adapted to their environment".
2. Evolution ignores abiogenesis (biological life arises from inorganic matter). They claim evolution is about diversity.
3. Evolutionist claim that Creationist are wrong because they "1) They calculate the probability of the formation of a "modern" protein, or even a complete bacterium with all "modern" proteins".
FACT. the most ancient of bacteria (3.4 billion years) are still "modern" and water must have been present. NOW evolutionist are claiming that life began elsewhere. This idea is in contradiction with their theory claiming that the earth was a molten rock 3.5 billion years ago. It was also to hot for water. How did it survive to get to earth?
4. DNA evidence proves neanderthal was a normal human.

SCIENCE has proven evolution did NOT happen!

Examine the EVIDENCE (not the dogma) in the following links:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/22/science/earth/22fossil.html?_r=3
http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-10-universal-common-ancestor-complex-previously.html
photo
Maezeppa
Happy-Happy Joy-Joy
06:48 PM on 10/12/2011
100% of all science data gathered supports evolution. There is not the slightest doubt about it. What's the matter, Clipsie? Are you too chicken to contact the authors of that paper you tried to brandish as evidence against evolution? Cowards and liars aren't very convincing champions for creationism, but that's a lost cause anyway.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
DakkonA
www.DisentangledReality.com
06:57 PM on 10/12/2011
"FACT. the most ancient of bacteria (3.4 billion years) are still "modern" and water must have been present. NOW evolutioni­st are claiming that life began elsewhere. This idea is in contradict­ion with their theory claiming that the earth was a molten rock 3.5 billion years ago. It was also to hot for water. How did it survive to get to earth?"

No one is saying anything that you are claiming here.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
06:56 PM on 10/11/2011
WIKIPEDIA: A common distinction sometimes made in science is between theories and hypotheses, with the former being considered as satisfactorily tested or PROVEN and the latter used to denote conjectures or proposed descriptions or models which have not yet been tested (and cannot be) or PROVEN to the same standard".

INTERESTING QUOTES FOUND OVER THE PAST COUPLE OF MONTHS ON HP:

Ana4 on 10/2/11: “Evolution is presented as a 'theory' in schools; The FACT is that there is a theory of evolution. Proof doesn't come into it, as others have mentioned: only mathematics has proofs. Proof comes over time with much re-testing, as you know. How can anyone here offer you proof? That's an absurd request.”

Maezeppa on 10/7/11: "Evolution is 100% fact".

Angel1999 on 9/3/11: "Every bit of informatio­n we have on evolution (~300,000 peer reviewed research articles on PubMed alone) provides proof of all these things."

Confusion and dilusion among "evolution hypothesizers" is evident in the way they contradict reputable references, ignore established facts, and even disagree with each other... !!!:) This illustrates why "evolution" should NOT be taught in public schools... !!!:) It misleads students and perverts science and compromises its integrity… !!!:(
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
DakkonA
www.DisentangledReality.com
07:19 PM on 10/11/2011
Nope, sorry. All you are doing is getting confused and having a temper tantrum about your inability to comprehend.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
09:28 PM on 10/11/2011
Awww:) Gee Thanks, DakkonA:) Sorry... I bet your feelins are hurt:) I should have included you. Maybe you can help me see where I got off track here... :) Sincere comments are appreciated... and others are tolerated:) If it's impressive enough, it may rate space in PJ's book... !!!:) I hear it's going quite well, BTW:)
photo
Maezeppa
Happy-Happy Joy-Joy
10:56 AM on 10/12/2011
You are straining to find a contradiction where there is none. Evolution is a fact. Evolutionary theory describes evolution the fact. 100% of the evidence comports with evolutionary theory.
Ana4
neutrino alert, just passing through
04:25 PM on 10/11/2011
Science and Religion: A False Divide, by UCSD Sociologist John H. Evans, gives an interesting scholarly perspective on 'creationism' and science. His recent survey indicates that only 11% of Christians hold reactionary views, and that ~50% believe in both Evolution and a Creator:

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-evans-protestants-20111010,0,7586180.story
photo
Maezeppa
Happy-Happy Joy-Joy
10:39 AM on 10/11/2011
'Called Australopithecus sediba, members of this group had brains little bigger than those of chimps, but they walked upright and possessed humanlike hands - which scientists say looked as if they were good at making and using tools. If they were good tool users, they might need to be renamed as homo something - a member of our wider group, the genus Homo, which is Latin for human. The earliest known member of this group, Homo habilis, lived 1.8 million years ago and earned this qualification because their remains were found along with stone tools.' http://bit.ly/nrXlBn
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
DakkonA
www.DisentangledReality.com
06:01 PM on 10/10/2011
Did DNA-based life come from a virus, or did viruses come from DNA-based cells?

http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2011/10/giant-viruses-may-have-evolved-from-cellular-organisms-not-the-other-way-around.ars

A 1.3-megabase virus. Holy crap. And apparently it originated right at the base of the eukaryotic lineage. And that it contains genes not seen anywhere else before suggests a lot about how diverse life was at the time.

Science is awesome.
photo
Maezeppa
Happy-Happy Joy-Joy
10:44 AM on 10/11/2011
Science is very awesome. Viruses are fascinating examples of the evolution from nonlife to life since they are basically gigantic molecules that sit on the borderline of life without actually technically being alive.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Eclipse33
11:22 AM on 10/13/2011
Yeah , and that that ancestor had a MUCH LARGER collection of genes. Again, more "streamlining" from more to less complex. The DATA proves NO evolution.
photo
Maezeppa
Happy-Happy Joy-Joy
11:59 AM on 10/13/2011
Is that the conclusion of the researchers who produced the data? No. That is only the conclusion of one very befuddled, ignorant creationist who can't read or interpolate the research.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
01:20 PM on 10/13/2011
" Again, more "streamlin­ing" from more to less complex. The DATA proves NO evolution"

Once again the dummy Creationists show their utter ignorance of evolution by assuming it always has to go from less complex to more complex. When will they get it into their tiny little heads that evolution is about change, not progress to greater complexity.
And if you are stupid enough to take the number of genes as some kind of evidence of greater complexity then you are really heading for a fall. The plant Ophioglossales has 1260 chromosomes whereas humans have 46.
Given the Creationist mantra that the mechanisms in living things were bestowed upon them by a Creator FOR A PURPOSE, what do you think the purpose was of those extra 1214 chormosomes which the lucky Ophioglossales was given by the Almighty?
photo
Maezeppa
Happy-Happy Joy-Joy
05:49 PM on 10/10/2011
'What makes "scientific creationism" a pseudoscience is that it attempts to pass itself off as science even though it shares none of the essential characteristics of scientific theorizing. Creation science will remain forever unchanged as a belief. It will engender no debate among scientists about fundamental mechanisms of the universe. It generates no empirical predictions that can be used to test it. It is taken to be irrefutable. And it assumes a priori that there can be no evidence that will ever falsify it. ' http://bit.ly/olO76b
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Eclipse33
06:59 PM on 10/10/2011
Sigh, You really are in a CULT.

Here more proof for you, examine the evidence.

http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/19/9/1637.full
photo
Maezeppa
Happy-Happy Joy-Joy
07:11 PM on 10/10/2011
Good grief, Honey, they're not talking about fossils here, but living strains of bacteria. Try to focus.
photo
Maezeppa
Happy-Happy Joy-Joy
07:15 PM on 10/10/2011
Too funny. The five authors' email links are at the top of the article. I doubt you have the guts to write them and ask what part of the research disproves or attack evolutionary theory. You will be told, "none of it whatsoever". Go on. I dare you. http://mbe­.oxfordjou­rnals.org/­content/19­/9/1637.fu­ll
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
TraceyES
11:10 AM on 10/15/2011
Most people willing to clutch onto Creationism have no ability to comprehend real scientific method. Creationism doesn't have to make sense. A little pseudo-scientific jargon and they're all on board. No logic required.
photo
Maezeppa
Happy-Happy Joy-Joy
12:20 PM on 10/15/2011
Of course. If they valued testable evidence they wouldn't be creationists to begin with.
photo
Maezeppa
Happy-Happy Joy-Joy
04:20 PM on 10/10/2011
Understanding Creationist Tactics --------- Creationists will use a lot of "dirty" tactics in a debate. If you want to study the issue of creationism and evolution, examine what creationists say with great care. If something a creationist says sounds interesting, follow up on it from a REPUTABLE source. Never trust what a creationist says about science. There are lots of excellent sources for science information — use them if you want to learn about the science related to evolution. Here is one: http://www.talkorigins.org/ Here is another: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Eclipse33
04:47 PM on 10/10/2011
This is the equivalent of someone putting their hands over their ears an screaming.

You are in a CULT

ALL current evidence destroys evolutions. It did not happen.
photo
Maezeppa
Happy-Happy Joy-Joy
04:54 PM on 10/10/2011
Zero evidence even mildly contradicts evolution, which has been occuring on earth for over 3.5 billion years, as your news clippings and other articles affirm.
Ana4
neutrino alert, just passing through
09:52 PM on 10/10/2011
Since Science contains a broad range of disciplines that "systematic[ally] study the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment" (OED) it cannot be deemed a religion and therefore cannot be considered a cult. There are no communal rituals that involve invoking the supernatural in science. As you well know.