₦airaland Forum

kmcutez: True talk, but at the same time religion can bring about complacency in the state of affairs of a nation, for example, some religious folk will not care about fighting corruption, mismanagement etc but will stay content with the hope that their dwelling is not of this earth but of heaven. These are mostly educated folks and if we have such a large number of such in a nation, how can the nation move forward, so again, we must manage religion for the nation to move forward.

In this case, we are both kind of right again. I think development depends on a lot of factors and will be different from country to country.

It is easier to sit behind your keyboard, and be an activist. I sincerely do not care about the religious affiliation of any activist against the corruption,nepotism and injustices that reign supreme in Nigeria. So why don't you come back to Nigeria and start making a change,you'll be at surprised at the number of people that will actually support your cause. BE THE CHANGE, bashing religion on nairaland is just so infinitisimal.like it or not the racism against any black man, atheist or a theist in the US/UK,or europe is still significant.

kmcutez: Ok, but why do you think God exists?

I believe I told you before that I yes BLINDLY FOOLISHLY believe in God without empirical proof believe that God exists,but you trying to use evolution to disusade me when the orignal life form,that simple cell that according to Darwin,evolved into complex life forms has not been ascertained. This will only leave us to continue an arguement that has gone on for years.like I said I only went into this arguement when ooman said science has proved the origin of live forms. Many scientists are still working on the theories of evolution and it has a lot of inconclusive,and incoherent pieces. So until it goes from theories of evolution to the laws of evolution my dear let's agree to disagree respectfully.

The problems with Nigeria is hydra-headed and blaming it on religion is just plain ignorance. Ooman is you really love africa and Nigeria,why can't you come back? Setup a foundation, do something really useful to enhance Nigeria's human capital that just bashing hatefully on your keys just to insult christaians.
I know really respectful atheists that refrain from personal attacks in discussions and I suggest you tow that line for civility sake

ooman: You want me to accept your God as a loving creating by threatening me with the civilizations he DESTROYED GRUESOMELY in history.

Even if heaven and hell exist, I choose to go with the devil. I cannot spend eternity with your cruel evil God. The Devil, Great Lucifer will provide for me in hell. What more, we will attack God again and we will overthrow God, i wonder what you will be saying then. THE DEVIL IS BETTER THAN GOD A MILLION TIMES OVER. HE IS A GREAT WARRIOR. ALL PRAISE TO THE DEVIL AKA LUCIFER. LUCIFER IS GREAT

It is your right to choose,hehehehehehe so please dont back it up with theories you know next to nothing about. Just say 'I hate God' becos I choose so

kmcutez: By arguing with someone who is trying to disprove the existence of God scientifically, automatically you are trying to prove the existence of God scientifically.

On the contray.....I'm trying to prevent people backing up their own personal opinion with pseudo-science. I argue scientifical,provide jorunals with dates of publication not on hearsay

abbakacici: Congratulations to super Eagles...they won the cup defeating Ethiopia, Mali, Burkina Faso and Ivory Coast! How Nigeria is fallen that it is now an major achievement beating those minor african footballing nations! However, one can only beat what team comes before you. So we were fortunate not to meet credible teams.

Please use words that you know the meaning, you can't use 'credible' becos none of the teams you mentioned cheated. Anyway if Ivory Coast, Mali that beat Ghana,Burkina that also beat Ghana isn't formidable enough, Then you should stick to watching beach football

Where is team Osaze now!!!!? I bet you have all turned coat

kmcutez: At least they have proven some things. Where is your own proof that God exists. Oh I forgot the bible. Talk about being dumb. Smh. Dumb should be defined as chukkynwob in the dictionary.

For eg, I failed my exams because I'm so chukkynwob. Lol

I am not the person trying to prove, you are the person trying to disprove, so just be an atheist and don't shove it down my throat and please refrain from name calling. I have not and will not bring myself to that low level of name calling.Thanks

Ooman if atheism is not a religion why do you feel this strong need to win people over. Note I am only responding to you scientifically to refute your half truths that may confuse people than don't know any better. I am not trying to win you over to be a christian.

As for my belief in God,it is called the christian faith and such does not require scientifc prove!

ooman: Quite a lecture you put up.

I am not political so i will not comment on politics at the beginning of your post.

You just quoted CREATIONISTs who though have seen proves of evolution, like every other brainwashed worshiper of a God, rejected it and followed the book called bible.

Most of the names you mentioned i know well, and i can tell you they are either catholic or orthodox, and like past scientist (Boyle for example), they have their thoughts controlled by the pope.

We all know that it is because of the evolutionary approach that medicine has seen great improvement in recent years.

Consider this, hundreds of years Ago, many scientists are religious but science did not witness any great improvement.

In recent decades, many scientists are atheists and science has seen major discoveries in recent decades. Does that prove anything to you. Think about that.

Concerning cosmology, the universe is the greatest thing comprehensible to the human mind, no man can claim to know all about the universe but the little we know suggest that reactions are not purposeful but occurs based on possibility as determined by present condition, e.g concentration of charge at a particular location in the universe.

We are all still learning and i think you religious people should excuse us if we dont know it all, because apparently, the bible does not offer perfect answer either. To say that God created the whole universe in a single day is a great blunder. The expanse of space and number of galaxies (in their billions) proves that the universe must be older than 6000 years.

Please do not pick part of the lecture, I mentioned published journals by renowned atheist sceintist that acknowledge that the theories of evolution has a lot of unanswered question. You can dazzle half educated people,please don't try it on me. If you can prove that the theory of evolution is all encompassing,I'll become an atheist,till then I love my Jesus

Toktee: Only pagans and muslims doubt men of God 4 they do nt blive in holy spirit yet they talk about paradise maybe the paradise is in their bedroom or UAE

https://www.nairaland.com/1188856/more-concerned-africa-than-salvation PLEASE GO THIS thread you'll see that doubting TB Joshua is nothing, people are doubting God and its sad

Effect on Scientific Endeavors Outside the Specific Field of Biology



Trofim Denisovich Lysenko
Stephen Wolfram in his book A New Kind of Science has stated that the Darwinian theory of evolution has, in recent years, "increasingly been applied outside of biology."[173]
Lysenkoism
Evolutionary theory played a prominent role in regards to atheistic communism.[174] Communists, in particular Stalinism, favored a version of Lamarckism called Lysenkoism developed by the atheist Trofim Denisovich Lysenko.[175] Lsyenko was made member of the Supreme Soviet and head of the Institute of Genetics of the Soviet Academy of Sciences.[176] Later Lysenko became President of the All-Union Academy of Agricultural Sciences.[177] Many geneticists were imprisoned and executed for their bourgeois science, and agricultural policies based on Lysenkoism that were adopted under the Communist leaders Joseph Stalin and Mao Zedong caused famines and the death of millions.[178]
Medical Science
[/b]The theory of evolution has had a negative effect on the field of medical science. According to Dr. Jerry Bergman the list of [b]vestigial organs in humans has gone from 180 in 1890 to 0 in 1999.[179] Furthermore, Dr. Bergman states the following:
“ Few examples of vestigial organs in humans are now offered, and the ones that are have been shown by more recent research to be completely functional (and in many cases critically so, see Bergman and Howe)...
One popular book on the human body which discussed vestigial organs stated that next to circumcision
‘… tonsillectomy is the most frequently performed piece of surgery. Doctors once thought tonsils were simply useless evolutionary leftovers and took them out thinking that it could do no harm. Today there is considerable evidence that there are more troubles in the upper respiratory tract after tonsil removal than before, and doctors generally agree that simple enlargement of tonsils is hardly an indication for surgery...’[180]
”
Astronomy
Young earth creation scientist Dr. Jonathan Sarfati states that evolutionary thought has been applied to the field of astronomy.[181] Sarfati's claim is supported by the fact that astronomers do refer to the "evolution of the universe".[182] Sarfati asserts the evolutionary view has had a negative effect on astronomy and that arguments to support the proposed evolutionary time scales of billions of years via the field of astronomy are invalid.[183] Creationists can cite examples of scientists stating that evolutionary ideas in astronomy have failed to have any explanatory power:
“ ““...most every prediction by theorists about planetary formation has been wrong.” Scott Tremaine, as quoted by Richard A. Kerr, “Jupiters Like Our Own Await Planet Hunters,” Science, Vol. 295, 25 January 2002, p. 605.[184] ”
“ "Attempts to find a plausible naturalistic explanation of the origin of the Solar System began about 350 years ago but have not yet been quantitatively successful, making this one of the oldest unsolved problems in modern science.” - Stephen G. Brush, A History of Modern Planetary Physics, Vol. 3 (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1996), p. 91.[184] ”
“ “We don’t understand how a single star forms, yet we want to understand how 10 billion stars form.” Carlos Frenk, as quoted by Robert Irion, “Surveys Scour the Cosmic Deep,” Science, Vol. 303, 19 March 2004, p. 1750.[185] ”

“ “We cannot even show convincingly how galaxies, stars, planets, and life arose in the present universe.” Michael Rowan-Robinson, “Review of the Accidental Universe,” New Scientist, Vol. 97, 20 January 1983, p. 186.[186] ”
In 2001, Cristina Chiappini wrote concering the Milky Way galaxy:
". . . it is an elegant structure that shows both order and complexity. . . . The end product is especially remarkable in the light of what is believed to be the starting point: nebulous blobs of gas. How the universe made the Milky Way from such simple beginnings is not altogether clear. - Cristina Chiappini, "The Formation and Evolution of the Milky Way," American Scientist (vol. 89, Nov./Dec. 2001), p. 506.[187]
Dr. Walt Brown provides numerous citations to the secular science literature that cite the failings of current old universe paradigm explanations in regards to the planets, stars, and galaxies.[184][185][186]
Origin of Life
Evolutionary thought has had an influence on origin of life research as well. For example, a 2004 article in the International Journal of Astrobiology is titled On the applicability of Darwinian principles to chemical evolution that led to life.[188] It is also clear that early origin of life researcher Aleksandr Oparin who proposed materialist ideas regarding the origin of life was influenced by evolutionary thought.[189] However, the current naturalistic explanations for the origin of life are inadequate.

Individuals who are against the evolutionary position assert that evolutionary scientists employ extremely implausible "just so stories" to support their position and have done this since at least the time of Charles Darwin.[145] [146]
A well known example of a "just so story" is when Darwin, in his Origin of the Species, wrote a chapter entitled "Difficulties on Theory" in which he stated:
“ "In North America the black bear was seen by Hearne swimming for hours with widely open mouth, thus catching, like a whale, insects in the water. Even in so extreme a case as this, if the supply of insects were constant, and if better adapted competitors did not already exist in the country, I can see no difficulty in a race of bears being rendered, by natural selection, more and more aquatic in their structure and habits, with larger and larger mouths, till a creature was produced as monstrous as a whale."[147] ”
Even the prominent evolutionist and geneticist Professor Richard Lewontin admitted the following:
“ "We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door." - Richard Lewontin, ‘Billions and billions of demons’, The New York Review, January 9, 1997, p. 31[148] ”
Dr. Sarfati wrote regarding the theory of evolution the following:
“ The same logic applies to the dinosaur-bird debate. It is perfectly in order for creationists to cite Feduccia’s devastating criticism against the idea that birds evolved ‘ground up’ from running dinosaurs (the cursorial theory). But the dino-to-bird advocates counter with equally powerful arguments against Feduccia’s ‘trees-down’ (arboreal) theory. The evidence indicates that the critics are both right — birds did not evolve either from running dinos or from tree-living mini-crocodiles. In fact, birds did not evolve from non-birds at all![149]

In 2011, Dr. Grady S. McMurtry declared:
“ It is a commonly held belief of evolutionists that small changes in genetic materials (mutations) will ultimately produce the presumed large changes necessary for one biological organism to change into a different kind of biological organism which is commonly called macroevolution. This belief is not valid. Scientifically, a mutation is a copying error of previously existing information contained in the DNA: a mutation is a structural change in the hereditary material which makes the offspring different from its parents.


Dr. Grady S. McMurtry
It is acknowledged that the Laws of Genetics are conservative, they are not “creative.” Genetics only copies or rearranges the previously existing information and passes it on to the next generation. When copying information, you have only two choices; you can only copy it perfectly or imperfectly, you cannot copy something “more perfectly.” Mutations do not build one upon another beneficially. Mutations do not create new organs; they only modify existing organs and structures. Mutations overwhelmingly lose information; they do not gain it; therefore, mutations cause changes which are contrary of evolutionary philosophy.
As a follow on, the addition of excess undirected energy will destroy the previously existing system. Indeed, you will never get an increase in the specifications on the DNA to create new organs without the input from a greater intelligence.
Mutations affect and are affected by many genes and other intergenic information acting in combination with one another. The addition of the accidental duplication of previously existing information is detrimental to any organism.
Mutations do produce “microevolution,” however, this term is far better understood as merely “lateral adaptation,” which is only variation within a kind, a mathematical shifting of gene frequency within a gene pool. The shifting of gene frequencies and a loss of information cannot produce macroevolution.
As Dr. Roger Lewin commented after the 1980 University of Chicago conference entitled “Macroevolution”:
“The central question of the Chicago conference was whether the mechanisms underlying microevolution can be extrapolated to explain the phenomena of macroevolution. … At the risk of doing violence to the positions of some of the people at the meeting, the answer can be given as a clear, No.” [Emphasis added]
Dr. Roger Lewin, “Evolution Theory under Fire,” Science. Vol. 210, 21 November 1980. p. 883-887.[114]
”
In 1988, the prominent Harvard University biologist Ernst Mayr wrote in his essay Does Microevolution Explain Macroevolution?:
“ Among all the claims made during the evolutionary synthesis, perhaps the one that found least acceptance was the assertion that all phenomena of macroevolution can be ‘reduced to,' that is, explained by, microevolutionary genetic processes. Not surprisingly, this claim was usually supported by geneticists but was widely rejected by the very biologists who dealt with macroevolution, the morphologists and paleontologists. Many of them insisted that there is more or less complete discontinuity between the processes at the two levels—that what happens at the species level is entirely different from what happens at the level of the higher categories. Now, 50 years later the controversy remains undecided.
...In this respect, indeed, macroevolution as a field of study is completely decoupled from microevolution.[115]

ooman: yes it is a non matter, but makes all matter up. You what, you can feel energy now because it makes you up in baryons, then to protons and electrons, then to molecules, then to cells, then to tissues, then to systems. It is everywhere and it is everything. It is you. Energy is everything that exist and not some God somewhere. Deep down inside you, you know this to be true but you are too afraid of hell to accept.

I have no doubt whatsoever that there is a living GOD,and you are the typical atheist just run round and round like the bulldog and endup saying nothing

ooman: HAVE I NOT TOLD YOU THAT THE GOD YOU WORSHIP IS ENERGY. YOU JUST MADE THAT POINT CLEAR NOW. continue to worship energy, i will continue to use it for my purposes.

If you have felt an electric shock, you have felt electric energy, and electrostatic force, do you understand that, engr?

My dear you lack the complex mind to argue on this with me....i stated equivocally few posts ago that you can feel the effects of energy and not the energy is itself. You cannot touch,or see energy because its a non-matter, hope you get it now? the shock is just the effect

all4naija: I am talking of the genetic make up! Get the bigger picture here first and don't complicate the issue.

The reason is that there are mismatch in the chromosomes pairing. However, I am not a biologist or geneticists but it is clear that is one of the reasons why human cannot mate with apes to produce an offspring.

My dear ATHEIST friend all I see are speculations,get more info before you argue.Lastly before I sleep Jesus loves you and it'll be a shame if you died and realize you in hell and there is a God.... GOODNIGHT Y'all

ooman: YOU ARE TOTALLY RIGHT. now you are thinking like an evolutionist ( and an atheist). I love your definition, it shows intelligence. It is true that change is not energy, but energy makes change possible. You said "It makes things happen. It makes change possible,the change in itself is not the energy. IT IS AN EFFECT" and i totally agree.

Because energy cannot be created or destroyed,and because of what i quoted from you above, you should be able to understand that since everything came from energy, and since energy cannot be created or destroyed, then creation was a lie.
You have also make energy look like the God you worship when you said "It makes things happen. It makes change possible,"

You have helped me proved evolution right once again. Thank you

Are you alright? God cannot be created nor destroyed.everything came from God,you cannot touch or see God but you feel his effect.

Our argument here was when you said you can touch energy,stick to the point.....

ooman: That is because microevolution is not phenotypically expressed. How do you explain presence of mainframe computers when ipads are now available because " they don't show a steady progression from mainframe computers to ipads at all"-that was from you. Now i may also start requesting for missing links between desktop and laptop, between laptop and ipads. Do you understand?

hahahahahahahahahahaha technological and biological evolution are mutually exclusive, dont just throw in anything for arguments sake. have you noticed how I don't do that?

all4naija: The truth is that human is not different ape genetically!

if we "broke off" from them, we should still be able to breed.

evidence?

the zebra can breed with the horse.
the lion can breed with the tiger
wolf can breed with the dog
pigs can breed with a hog
the camel can breed with the llama
the grizzly with the polar bear
a leopard and a lion
a bottlenose dolphin and a false killer whale
a tiger and a lion/tiger mix
cow and buffalo
goat and sheep

the list goes on and on and on. but the questions remain, if we are this similar with apes, why can we not breed with them?

redsun: You don't have to literally turn from ape in the bush to the dressed up man u are today for you to believe in evolution. In no distantly man was in the same situations of living in the bush as hunter gatherer,living in open,eating wild and fresh like the lions,before he started thinking and thought if fire,thought of stone tools to the point that he now lives in skyscrapers and fly in the sky with objects made of his brains and hands. Things we take for granted today,but,they didn't come easy

Did he change biologically? from hunting in my village to living in scrappers

ooman: The proof is that chimpanzees and humans share more than 98% of their gene and so must have evolved from same ancestor.

That is verified. the ancestor of other apes and human diverged some 200tya. we progressively evolved from autralopethecus, then afarensis, then habilis, then erectus, till it get to us, sapiens. There is your proof.

how do you explain thousands of fossils and fossil fragments of apes and humans have now been found — and they don't show a steady progression from apes to humans at all

ooman: pls tell us, what do you define as energy. Let me know your view on energy, dont just make me feel unintelligent, make yourself feel intelligent too.

To break it down in layman's terms,Look around you. Is anything moving?
Can you hear, see or feel anything? Sure... this is because something is making something happen, and most probably, there is some power at home. This power or ability to make things happen is what we can call energy. It makes things happen. It makes change possible,the change in itself is not the energy. IT IS AN EFFECT

redsun: Did u just say 200 years. 200 years in in evolutionary traits is less than 1000th of a second.

These things have been for billions of years and it transforms,destroys,shape and recreate itself as time goes by

The only thing that remains the same is time and it remains as a concept as long as humans exist. Like every other thing,time is man's imagination.

Where is the proof that apes turned into humans?

Despite the evidence being pathetic, even if you claim the title of World's Biggest Optimist, evolutionists still tell the story that once upon a time humans evolved from ape-like creatures.

Many years ago this argument seemed credible to a lot of people because there was so little hominid fossil evidence that it was easy to imagine evolutionary links everywhere.

But things have changed. Thousands of fossils and fossil fragments of apes and humans have now been found — and they don't show a steady progression from apes to humans at all. Fossils have been found in the wrong time-frames, put into the wrong categories before all the evidence was in, and what was once thought to be the ape-human family tree now actually has no trunk — just unconnected branches.

Because evolutionists can't change their theory, they are stuck with the evidence looking more confusing for them with each new hominid/homin/hominine fossil discovery. Instead of clarifying the alleged link between apes and humans, new fossil discoveries are making it harder to show which type of ape or ape-like creature evolved into a human.

davidylan: Obviously you have no idea what you are talking about but simply jumped in to support a fellow atheist.



this is brainless word salad.

1. Of course all genes occur naturally... that would be a silly thing to be debating and certainly wasnt what the discussion was about.

2. What do you mean by "being something different from the particular genes it is extracted from"? Can you extract a gene from a gene? You simply need to clone a gene from a genome, you cant just cut out a gene from a living organism. That was the most senseless statement i've read on here all day.

3. There is nothing like a "transgene organism" - its a transgenic organism



What is a "trangene"? A gene that is transfered is a transgene. Genes occur naturally and gene transfer is a well known fact of science.

What is it you were saying?

Please Davidlyan Atheist or not,if ooman can tell me seeing a bolt of lightening is seeing energy,and that an eee is an electrician or redsun telling me having computers and living in a technologically advance world is the same as or remotely close to biological evolution,then there is a fundamental problem and obvious knowledge gaps. Atheist just argue for the sake of arguing.

redsun: I don't think there are much differences between technological evolution and biological. Man's ability to think,reason,create and innovates helps him to transform himself from one physical feature and condition to another.

Humans would still be looking like apes on the bush if they have not thought of rszor/blades to shave. And you can see evidences of evolutionary traits and gaps among modern humans in the way people live. Some are thousands of years apart from each other in the evolutionary race,just because the ones behind are slow to catch up with the concept of evolution,as in the case of Africa that is bothering with ancient beliefs like Christianity and living in abject miseries as a result of not knowing. While the west is on the mission of relocating to mars with earth almost at its tatters from over exploration.

Biologically there is no difference between humans in African jungles 200 years ago and you, so please that you have computers now or that you go to the moon,is not [size=20pt]BIOLOGICAL EVOLUTION[/size] if there is please tell me

ooman: Tell, what do i see when i see lightening? Why can i store lightening and use it to power my computer later? Tell me the true statement mr. engr

[size=20pt]Please don't argue this you can only see the effects of energy,you can't see energy, storing energy is it the same as seeing energy? NO NO NO please ask a physicist[/size].

ooman: I must have hurt you. Sorry.

Tell me, If energy can be created, why do we have limited types of energy?

Try and keep up! Did I say energy can be created? I refuted your claim that by seeing a lightening bolt you have seen energy. That is a false statement

ooman: sorry but that only makes you an electrician, probably a radionic, or a mechanic or even a tv repairer. That doesnt make you a scientist. You have to be a physicist before you can qualify to talk about energy with me.

You are showing your ignorance again in a profession you know nothing about.....the device you are typing with was not engineered by theories but by application of theories and before you can apply a theory you have to understand the theory. P:S I can get an advanced degree in physics but a physicist cannot purse an advanced engineering degree, ever wonder why?

[size=20pt]With your last post I can conclude by your arguments that you are not widely read,if you actually believed an EEE is an electrician or a TV repairer [/size]

ooman: Your arguments are accurate. Have you seen lightening before, then you are seen energy, have you heard thunder before, then you have heard energy, have you held anything before, then you have held energy, because everything is composed of energy.

It is true that energy is broad, but a simple law remains valid, it cannot be created or destroyed.

Please I will love to correct you once and for all scientifically,you cannot touch,hold or see energy,you can only feel,touch,see the effects energy.A lightening bolt is a result of discharge of energy...[size=13pt]the bolt in itself is not the energy it is just the effect[/size]. Science is tricky eh? you have to have a complex mind to grasp the concept energy.

On the issue of energy may i remind you that I am a qualified electrical and electronics engineer

redsun: Evidence of evolution is UR ability to interact here right now from thousand of miles away effortless.

Just because oyinbo made it easy doesn't mean it is easy and you are hanging on to primitive beliefs, instincts and hiding under oyinbo umbrellas because you failed like most Africans to understand the principles of nature and use it to your own advantage.

Man is nothing other than formations of cells that forms by chance,just like the universe itself. It exist because sequences of events allows it to exist and the best u can do is understand it and ride.

There are differences between technological evolution and biological evolution, do not mix it up, in this context they are mutually exclusive.

Where is the proof that apes turned into humans?

Despite the evidence being pathetic, even if you claim the title of World's Biggest Optimist, evolutionists still tell the story that once upon a time humans evolved from ape-like creatures.

Many years ago this argument seemed credible to a lot of people because there was so little hominid fossil evidence that it was easy to imagine evolutionary links everywhere.

But things have changed. Thousands of fossils and fossil fragments of apes and humans have now been found — and they don't show a steady progression from apes to humans at all. Fossils have been found in the wrong time-frames, put into the wrong categories before all the evidence was in, and what was once thought to be the ape-human family tree now actually has no trunk — just unconnected branches.

Because evolutionists can't change their theory, they are stuck with the evidence looking more confusing for them with each new hominid/homin/hominine fossil discovery. Instead of clarifying the alleged link between apes and humans, new fossil discoveries are making it harder to show which type of ape or ape-like creature evolved into a human.