Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


1 posted on 06/11/2003 8:03:27 AM PDT by blam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-36 next last
To: blam
"Oldest Human Skulls Found"

Saw this headline, and maybe it's because I had a birthday yesterday that ended with the numeral zero, but I instinctively tapped my skull to be sure that it was still in place.
2 posted on 06/11/2003 8:15:20 AM PDT by John Beresford Tipton
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: PatrickHenry
Ping
3 posted on 06/11/2003 8:15:23 AM PDT by Dementon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: blam
How many Neanderthal fossils have been found? Anyone know?
5 posted on 06/11/2003 8:19:20 AM PDT by Norse
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: blam
This a very important discovery. If the dating is correct (and dating at this time period is very difficult because it is beyond the range of accurate cabon dating and too late for accurate potassium/argon dating, the two chief dating techniques), it falls right in between earlier Homo erectus and modern human remains. Moreover, Tim White is a highly respected paleoanthropologist.

It would be nice if someone with access could post the entire article. I gave up my subscription to Nature some time ago.
7 posted on 06/11/2003 8:24:45 AM PDT by B.Bumbleberry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: blam
The skulls are not an exact match to those of people living today; they are slightly larger, longer and have more pronounced brow ridges.

These minor but important differences have prompted the US/Ethiopian research team to assign the skulls to a new subspecies of humans called Homo sapiens idaltu (idaltu means "elder" in the local Afar language).

I dunno -- it seems like a stretch to define a whole new sub-species on the basis of three skulls that could arguably have come from a single family.

9 posted on 06/11/2003 8:27:27 AM PDT by r9etb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: blam
I guess God is still playing tricks with us leaving all that old stuff around :sarcasm off:
11 posted on 06/11/2003 8:29:04 AM PDT by Califcon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: blam
BS.....His father's skull is older for starters. His ancestor's skull's are a lot older.....BS
12 posted on 06/11/2003 8:30:02 AM PDT by Consort
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: blam
I've been holding out for some kind of synthesis of "Out of Africa" and "multi-regional," but OOA is the one with evidence piling up for it these days.
13 posted on 06/11/2003 8:31:14 AM PDT by VadeRetro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: PatrickHenry
What excites scientists so much is that the specimens fit neatly with the genetic studies that have suggested this time and part of Africa for the emergence of mankind.

An "evolution prediction pans out" bump.

15 posted on 06/11/2003 8:35:40 AM PDT by Junior (How do stormtroopers use the restroom?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: blam
I really feel let down that no one has yet posted a picture of Helen Thomas on this thread!!!!
17 posted on 06/11/2003 8:36:24 AM PDT by Vinnie_Vidi_Vici
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: blam
The polishing on the skulls, however, suggests this was not simple cannibalism but more probably some kind of ritualistic behaviour.

The polishing makes me think of the "Predator" movies.

19 posted on 06/11/2003 8:43:02 AM PDT by Pearls Before Swine (South-south-west, south, south-east, east....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: blam
YEC skeptical SPOTREP
20 posted on 06/11/2003 8:43:08 AM PDT by LiteKeeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: blam
The oldest human skull would be Adam's and it would be 6000 years old.
21 posted on 06/11/2003 8:44:13 AM PDT by biblewonk (Spose to be a Chrisssssstian)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: blam
Hmmm.......now I wonder how the creationists are going to label this skull:

1. Simply an ape that has never been discovered before or...

2. Clearly just another human skull, with deformities and damage that makes it appear not human.

Yes, we're all familiar with that now tired shell game.

"There are NO transitional fossils in the record! NEVER have been", typical Creationist says.

"Ok, what about this skull 'X'?", typical response by an Evolutionist.

"Oh CLEARLY that's just another kind of ape, or the damage is too severe to say it's NOT a simple human skull, or..."...basically ANY response to deny that the ORIGINAL question was answered, at least to any OBJECTIVE eye.
22 posted on 06/11/2003 8:49:22 AM PDT by FourtySeven
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: blam
Oldest Human Skulls Found

Somewhere in the Senate would be my guess.

23 posted on 06/11/2003 8:51:52 AM PDT by tbpiper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: blam
http://www.sacred-texts.com/atl/ataw/ataw309.htm
24 posted on 06/11/2003 9:01:53 AM PDT by 728b (Never cry over something that can not cry over you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: blam
These minor but important differences have prompted the US/Ethiopian research team to assign the skulls to a new subspecies of humans called Homo sapiens idaltu (idaltu means "elder" in the local Afar language).

Hahaha. A subspecies of humans? That's a laugh considering they have no DNA and the reconstruction was likely as fraudulent as the reconconstruction of the Neanderthal skulls. A recent book written by a trained orthodontist who examined the Neanderthal skulls showed that their reconsruction was fraudulent in that the jaws did not have the proper occlusions (an ortho ought to know!) - they were altered to create an apelike appearance.

Let's see...Piltdown Man, Peking Man, Nebraska Man, Java Man, Lucy, and now Homo Sapien Idaltu. BWAHAHAHAHAHA.

26 posted on 06/11/2003 9:17:28 AM PDT by exmarine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: blam
Nice find.

How do the creationists explain these almost-in-the-image-of-God fossils? God's sense of humor or his way of lying to fool the infidels?

32 posted on 06/11/2003 9:40:31 AM PDT by Nebullis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Carry_Okie
ping
39 posted on 06/11/2003 10:01:15 AM PDT by farmfriend ( Isaiah 55:10,11)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: blam
The skulls were found in fragments, at a fossil-rich site first identified in 1997, in a dry and dusty valley.

As opposed to any of those wet and dusty valleys in the region, I'm assuming.

56 posted on 06/11/2003 10:27:47 AM PDT by Dog Gone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-36 next last

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson