"This is what Prof. Yosef Neuman from Tel Aviv University says in an interview with the Hidan website. Today marks 41 years since the discovery of the skeleton of a female Australopithecus afarensis called Lucy, the first species in the lineage that led to man, who stood upright on his two legs.
41 years ago today, a team of archaeologists led by paleoanthropologist Donald Johnson excavating in the lower Awash River valley in the Afar Triangle in Ethiopia discovered a skeleton that is considered an important stage in human evolution. After estimating that it was a female due to the structure of the pelvis, the archaeologists decided to call her Lucy, inspired by the song Lucy in the Diamond Sky by The Beatles. The meaning of the word Australopithecus is southern monkey. The name Australopithecus was coined by the Australian anatomist Raymond Dart who discovered the first fossils of the species Australopithecus africanus in 1924 in Taung, South Africa.
Lucy belonged to an extinct species of creature that appears to be an intermediate creature between a human and a monkey, the age of the skeleton is about 3.2 million years. Lucy's skeleton is one of the most complete discovered in the study of human evolution, about 40% of the entire skeleton. Furthermore, almost all of the missing part on one side of the skeleton is on the other side, so with a reasonable assumption of symmetry it is possible to reconstruct almost the entire skeleton, except for the upper part of the skull and the fingers and toes. Lucy's height was 1.1 meters and she weighed about 29 kg, about as much as an average chimpanzee. Despite the small brain, the bones of the legs are very similar to those of the intelligent man, which shows with great confidence that Lucy and species of her kind walked upright. However, her skull and teeth resemble those of a monkey.
When it was discovered, it was placed near the point of the split between the ape and man, but today we know that there are other much earlier hominid species, and that the split took place 8 million years ago.
Prof. Yosef Neuman from the Faculty of Life Sciences at Tel Aviv University wishes to emphasize that evolution has no goals. Man is not the goal of evolution, he is a product like any other species. The idea that there is some ladder towards man is a wrong idea. In retrospect, this is a link on the way from the ape from which the human and chimpanzee lineages split, but only in retrospect.
"The importance of Lucy is that she solved a puzzle among researchers of human evolution. For a long time there was a debate on the question of what preceded the growth of the brain, and with it of course also the skull or the erectness - two important signs that distinguish a person. Lucy was one of the most important pieces of evidence that the erection preceded the brain strand."
"Her brain is only slightly larger than that of apes. Standing up was very important because it freed the hands and allowed for the development of subtle activity of the hands, under the control of the brain. The accepted hypothesis is that the descent from the trees and the uprighting was a response to the disappearance of the trees and their replacement by the savannah full of tall grasses as a result of the drying caused by climate change.
"Erecting was a certain answer to life in the savannahs because seeing at a distance was important in defending against predatory animals, a danger that the apes and monkeys that lived in the trees did not have."
"We know today that there was a point, which we are looking for, where the lineages split into chimpanzees, which are closest to us, and the branch that led to hominids and eventually to man. Lucy is located long after the split.” Neumann concludes.
More of the topic in Hayadan:
- The human messenger race. An interview of the Scientific American Israel system with Prof. Yoel Rak
- Mary Leakey following the primitive man
- Lucy in Bruges - the oldest fossil in the human lineage was discovered
- From amoeba to man - a misconception of evolution
- Asimov on - A long look at the monkey
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CKWHoHU2ESw
45 תגובות
Shmulik
Yaron does not answer questions about the nonsense he writes. Don't try…
Yaron,
Again, I didn't understand. You brought Nobel laureates as a reference for something and then come down on this institution?
Can I please have peer-reviewed articles demonstrating the refutation of evolution?
Shmulik
Haha, Arafat was also criticized by peers and was a serial killer...
Not all researchers in the world are Nobel laureates, but that does not detract from their achievements.
Yaron,
I did not understand. Nobel laureates will not undergo peer review? How exactly did they get a Nobel Prize?
Anyway, are you basically saying that I have nothing to look forward to peer-reviewed papers disproving evolution?
Yaron
How does this relate to my question? 🙂
Are you unable to answer? I will ask again…
Are Sir Fred Hoyle's views acceptable to you?
A simple question - yes or no?
Miracles
The fact that you and I, for example, are fans of the same soccer team, for example, does not make us believe the same things. So it has nothing to do with what you said.
Shmulik
You are right, these are delusional people who woke up one morning and wrote an unfounded article and decided what they decided. They have no academic background, they have never studied zoology, chemistry or physics, they just came to confuse your brain. There is a whole list, there is Google, go in and get an impression if they are delusional, liars or just Stupid. Peer review? Haha funny. Of course they won't pass...
Evolution yes or no has nothing to do with religion. There are advanced scientists on the list who think differently based on what they have learned, they are neither Jews nor wearers of a kippah.
Yaron,
You didn't give an opinion. An opinion in science is not just someone who writes an article in a newspaper or a book. An opinion piece is the publication of an article in a peer-reviewed journal. It is not a sufficient condition but it is a necessary condition. Please provide a link to a published scientific article that supports your claims. There are so many Nobel laureates so it should be easy, right?
A. Benner
It will not help. Religious people are opposed to evolution because it throws their concept of the uniqueness and special importance of man into the garbage can and because for some religious people it contradicts what is written in the Torah.
Liron
You wrote that you do not believe in evolution.
Well I would like to bring to your attention that, evolution is a scientific theory.
Science does not deal with beliefs but with supporting evidence or refutations.
There is a great deal of evidence supporting the theory of evolution.
Do you know any fact that disproves the theory of evolution?
As of today, to the best of my knowledge, no scientific evidence has been found to disprove the theory of evolution.
I agree with you on one thing, even though you didn't say it.
Do not say "the theory of evolution" but only "the theory of evolution"
The term "Torah" belongs to religion and human values, the term "theory" belongs to scientific research.
It seems to me that this seemingly semantic change in Torah wine to theory is the one that may bridge my gap
The controversy between the world of religion and the world of science in the context of evolution. It will be much easier for the clergy
To treat evolution as a "research theory" and not as a "Torah", because of the load of meanings
accompanying this concept to their view.
Yaron
It's nice that you send us to clergymen to learn about "God", but you insist on getting an astronomer's opinion on a question in biology.
And even if his opinion is against yours....
Yaron
Beautiful. Hoyle believed in panspermia, and did not believe in God.
Now will you change your mind? 🙂
Definitely yes. I don't believe in coincidences at such levels, there is a limit to coincidences. And hence I don't believe in evolution either.
Yaron
exactly. Now - is what Hoyle says acceptable to you?
Yaron
You described that the probability of the formation of a protein molecule is 10 to the 34th power, or something like that.
Please - which biologist claims that a protein is created randomly?
Miracles
Absolutely right my mistake
He won the Balzan Prize for Astrophysics
and the Crawford Fellowship in Astronomy.
His partner Alfred Fuller won the Nobel Prize in Physics
thanks and confesses
rival
When you see a fancy Ferrari you see the product not the manufacturer. But you admire the manufacturer because the product testifies to him. Likewise, a magnificent building testifies to its architect, and so does anything sophisticated testifies to its designer. So does the universe. The sophistication, the timing, the colors, the billions of details, and more testifies to its designer and manufacturer. God cannot be created or created. Because then he is limited just like us because someone who created created him and this is impossible. Therefore he must not be created nor created and he is omnipotent therefore it is clear that he was there all along.
Now, just as you want to know for example about everything in life, you go and study physics, computer science, mathematics in the authorized places, so you can also go and learn about God. Ask questions, stand up, you got satisfactory answers, then great. If you didn't get satisfactory answers, keep believing what you want. I'm not pretending convince no one.
rival
To remind you, you wanted to know *how it was created* and you did not ask us to prove that it exists, therefore I started from the assumption that you believe it exists.
Yaron
What exactly did Fred Hoyle get a Nobel Prize for?
Yaron
I will ask you again - are the opinions of those people you quoted acceptable to you? Yes or No?
rival
If you don't believe it exists then why are you asking how it was created?
Raphael,
There are two stages, first you will see that a certain thing exists, then we can ask how it was created. The universe exists, now we can ask how it was created, regarding God we haven't even passed the first stage yet.
First see that it exists.
rival
Let's take something that we both agree exists like the universe. However, it is not possible to explain how it was created (although there are many theories...)
Yaron,
God created the universe I thought it was obvious, now please explain about God.
Raphael,
Do you think that not being able to explain how tooth fairies are formed is a sign that they don't exist?
Raphael
Probably….
There is a murdered person, there is a body and the killer is not found, which means that there is no murdered person.
Also a way of thinking.
Hello opponent
A. I did not mention God. I brought an opinion that does not agree with the theory of evolution. I think it is appropriate in a democratic website to bring a number of opinions. If so, the website is biased and presents only one side.
B. When you explain to me how the whole universe was created out of nothing and the point suddenly appeared, it's not an explanation... I'll explain to you about God.
Hello opponent
A. I did not mention God. I brought an opinion that does not agree with the theory of evolution. I think it is appropriate in a democratic website to bring a number of opinions. If so, the website is biased and presents only one side.
B. When you explain to me how the whole universe was created out of nothing and the point suddenly appeared, it's not an explanation... I'll explain to you about God.
rival,
Do you think that everything that cannot be explained how it was created is a sign that it does not exist?
Yaron,
Regarding the list of scientists who reject evolution, look at this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pPbZwKLj4hA
(You can turn on Hebrew translation)
Yaron,
I am ready to agree with everything you wrote if you just explain to us briefly how God Almighty created himself.
(always existed is not an answer)
Hah. The truth is, it's really amusing. We're all smart, we're all wise, we all know everything...and Nobel laureates and professors and chemists and zoologists are the delusional and dangerous fools. It gives the impression that the dangerous site is this site in general that gives a platform to a regular group to discredit and name respected sites and people just because they dared to express an opinion different.
Miracles,
Why make an effort? Since when does something the Discovery Institute publishes deserve something? This is the institute that prepared a leaked secret strategy called the Wedge Strategy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedge_strategy
Here's the summary:
he wedge strategy is a political and social action plan authored by the Discovery Institute, the hub of the intelligent design movement. The strategy was put forth in a Discovery Institute manifesto known as the Wedge Document,[1] which describes a broad social, political, and academic agenda whose ultimate goal is to defeat materialism, naturalism, evolution, and "reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions."[2] The strategy also aims to affirm what it calls "God's reality."[3] Its goal is to change American culture by shaping public policy to reflect conservative Christian, namely evangelical Protestant, values
Yaron quoted a list of people published on this dangerous website. So quote. Sue Watt? Have any of them published articles in peer-reviewed scientific journals demonstrating the refutation of evolution? It would be nice to have a reference to such a published and peer-reviewed article.
Yaron
"There is not a single intermediate state in the process of millions of years"
Strange because all you have to do is look in the mirror and see such an intermediate state.
I know you won't understand and will see it as some kind of attempt to insult, but that's not what I'm saying. We are all intermediate stages between different organisms, the difference is in how deep we go in the resolution level of the categorization.
At the maximum resolution level for example, you are an intermediate state between your parents and your children.
If a needle weighing one gram is lost in a pile of hay weighing: a billion times a billion times a billion tons - the chance of finding it statistically is one in 1033 (a number with 33 digits), but from a scientific point of view, such a probability, although it is very low , is not defined as a possible binding from a practical point of view. Scientifically it has been determined that an event whose probability of occurrence is less than one in 1050 is considered impossible from a practical point of view.
The evolutionary scientist Lacomte de Noy calculated that the probability of a single protein fragment forming by chance is one in 10243. As we know, a single living cell consists of hundreds of protein fragments, and many other complex substances, and such a chance of random formation is scientifically impossible!
Prof. Fred Hoyles, a scientist with a Nobel Prize, wrote in his book "Nature": "The chance that developed life forms evolved by chance is comparable to the chance that a tornado blowing through a junkyard could cause the formation of a Boeing 747 airplane from the materials found there."
Prof. Stanley: "The fossil findings that have been discovered do not include intermediate forms in the transition from one animal group to another. Darwin and with him the architects of his theory would have stood speechless in front of the fossils that were discovered".
Prof. Aldrif: "The fossil findings clearly prove that there is no possibility of gradual development, this possibility is completely null."
Prof. Bret Fink: "The discoveries of the new age destroyed the Darwinist dreams, Darwinism is nothing more than a worldview and should not be attributed scientific status."
Prof. Fleishman, a zoologist for anatomy, writes: "I have long been a follower of the theory of evolution. However, after I delved into its simulated proofs, it became clear to me that it is more of a novel than an established theory."
You probably know a little more than the Nobel laureate and some senior professors. Share with us.
Yaron
What did I say that was wrong? The numbers you said reinforce that the theory of evolution is correct. If you are trying to convince with numbers, then bring convincing numbers….
I have a question for you - is everything that these hundreds of scientists say acceptable to you? Yes or No?
And what "intermediate state" are you looking for in this process of millions of years?
Miracles
Your responses indicate a method. Anyone who doesn't think like you is delusional, a liar or a fool.
If I'm not mistaken, you're a Nobel laureate, right? And all the respected professors are delusional, stupid and liars.
What to do with the theory of evolution in collapse. There is not a single intermediate state in the process of millions of years. Extremely puzzling!
Believing in evolution is about the same as believing that a transparent person can fly an F16...blessed is the believer.
Yaron
Thank you so much for the list!! But - let's see what is actually written on the list - "99.99% of scientists in the world support evolution. The majority, but not supporters, are not biologists at all."
Oh - and don't forget that the "Discovery" institute is known for its lies...
(Some links to blocked lies...)
There is nothing wrong with being religious... but why base your faith on nonsense?
Yaron
Thank you so much for the list!! But - let's see what is actually written on the list - "99.99% of scientists in the world support evolution. The majority, but not supporters, are not biologists at all."
Oh - and don't forget that the Discovery Institute is known for its lies:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/11/16/the-discovery-institute-lies-t/
http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2013/04/13/more-lies-from-the-discovery-institute/
There is nothing wrong with being religious... but why base your faith on nonsense?
Recently, the "Discovery" Institute, the leading organization of supporters of intelligent design, published a list with 538 scientists who signed a statement opposing Darwinism. Among the signatories are 154 biologists, 76 chemists and 63 physicists, many of them professors or researchers at prestigious research institutions such as MIT, and the universities of Cambridge, UCLA, Berkeley, Princeton, Pennsylvania, Georgia, and Washington.
Among the signatories you can find famous names such as that of Professor James Thor from Rice University who became famous following an important breakthrough in the field of nanotechnology. Thor succeeded in building the "nano-car", a single molecule in the shape of a car with four rotating wheels. According to him, the experience he gained in the field of chemistry and nanotechnology taught him how difficult it is to manipulate atoms and molecules. "It is hard to believe that nature is capable of producing the tiny machines found inside the living cell through a random process," said Thor, "the explanations offered by evolution are lacking."
In the list of signatories you can also find the member of the National Academy of Sciences in the USA Philip Skel, the fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science Lil Jensen, the evolutionary biologist Stanley Selth, the evolutionary biologist Richard von Sternberg, the embryologist and member of the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences Lev Belusov, as well as the editor of the oldest biological journal in the world "Ribista di Biologia", Giuseppe Sarmonti. Another interesting signature is that of Professor Stanley Selth who is not only a respected biologist in his own right but also the author of an advanced textbook dealing with evolutionary biology so it's certainly hard to say he doesn't know what he's talking about.
Here is the list:
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=660
There are hundreds who disagree with all due respect to Professor Neumann
Mr. Yitzhak Cohen
Please excuse us from your irrelevant presence.
Goodbye and Goodbye.
Well done - we should add to his last name - Kofiko
In light of the great genius findings that you manage to discover every year or two, isn't it time that the most learned and educated genius professor of all people begins to understand the truth by reading and thoroughly learning with the help of course from students who are a little more educated than him the book of Genesis, and then maybe you will be freed up for family matters to be in their midst of your children and grandchildren, I agree that it's simply better than being immersed in your false truth, my learned friend, so if you want to get in touch to educate yourself, I'll be happy to help you, because you really need help, I wish you a more reasonable day and never be ashamed to call, always available for you
In the article Trivial mistakes: The weight of female-male chimpanzees is about 40-70 kg. Bonobo 30-40. The claim that the straightening is the result of a descent from the trees to the savannah has been irrelevant for decades because the remains of walking on two have been found in forests that are 5 million years old. It is not known that the split of man from chimpanzee is 8 million years old, but it is estimated.
fixed. I had to do a REDIRECT from the previous address otherwise those who received the link during the day will not be able to access it.
Buy the English in the link please.
Evidence will not be preceded by an, because it is not something that can be counted (not in English, that is). The verb predates should be in the singular form, as here, and not in the plural form. Standing alone will be interpreted as "standing", while the meaning you want should be added: standing upright, or replace with the term bipedalism, which means walking on two.
Informants expect more!