Posted on 10/04/2009 8:11:34 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
The papers and news sites are full of claims about what some still think is a “new” candidate for an evolutionary ancestor of humans. Called Ardipithecus ramidus (often just “Ardi”), most of the articles actually explain that it’s really a detailed reanalysis of a fossil category that’s been around for years, but still the phones run hot with concerned creationists or gloating skeptics. Perhaps this is not surprising, given the journalistic temptation to run with headlines such as “Before Lucy came Ardi, new earliest hominid found”—even though the article itself states that the bones were first discovered in 1994!1 In fact, though there is a lot of evolutionary spin, especially in the media, so far there have been few claims of this “proving evolution”, it is more a question of trying to score points and settle internal issues within the community of already-established “true believers” in human evolution...
(Excerpt) Read more at creation.com ...
Ping!
More Spam.
This is the third thread you have started about the same subject in the last three days.
There will be several more. I know you will thoroughly enjoy them all d:op
I wonder if Evos concider News media touting Ardi over and over and over again as’ spam’? Thanks for hte heads up on this one- The news media have been goign wild wit their ‘ealiest human ancestor’ stories the past couple of days, and I’m sure their assinine claims are being spammed all over our school systems duping young impressionable minds in an effort to link us with a ‘common ancestor’ (but apparently, this will be a-ok with evos- it’s only when evidence refutes their assinien claims that they complain about ‘spam’
Spell check is a wonderful thing!
How dare you right wing nuts insult dear Ardi. Evolution today, evolution tomorrow, evolution forever. And—here’s a bonus—she’s better looking than the Vermont congressional delegation, and will get better results if elected.
to quote you Fo5, on another thread:
“ I don’t understand wht fascists are considered “far right” They are very left wing”
spell check, indeed
Running low on material no doubt.
[[Most readers of the headlines would be unaware of the way in which the fossil bits and pieces were scattered over a distance greater than 1½ kilometres!]]
So let’s see- they find fragments scattered over almost a mile, plop them altogether, and create a skull out of pieces, and htis is the ‘closest relative’ we have? A walk i n the woods in a 1 mile radius would find many fragments of bones from many species- and one could collext the fragments and cobble together anythign they wish
They are talking about ‘Ardi’ as though it was a bunch of fragments all foundi n one spot, as though all the pieces belong to hte same ‘individual’ but how the heck can they know it was from one individual? Cripes- in a one mile radius, it’s VERY likely that all those fragments came from different ‘individuals’ and even from different time periods.
“In summary, the results of this objective statistical study suggest that the AME-VP-1/71 bone had scant similarity to human bone, was dissimilar to baboon bone and was most dissimilar to chimpanzee bone. The baboon bone was similar to the chimpanzee and dissimilar to human bone. The chimpanzee was most dissimilar to humans. Human bone had no similarity to monkey or ape bone. Therefore, these objective ancestry analyses for fossil bones suggest that the conclusion of Haile-Selassie and Robinson, that Ardipithecus ramidus kadabba was an ancestor of apes and humans that walked on two legs, is farfetched speculation.”
‘Far fetched speculation’? Cripes! I’ll say! Take a bunch of skull fragments from many individual pigs of different size, shape etc that are scattered over a one mile radius, assemble them in a hodge podge manner, and you’re goign to have soemthign compeltely different from what actualy existed- that’s essentially what they did here- there is NO WAY they could know these fragments all came form one individual, yet they throw the gragments all together and declare they’ve ‘found an individual specimen’ ‘Far Fetched’? Try pure fantasy!
But in any event Ardi will go back into the basement locker once a prettier face comes along.
“So let’s see- they find fragments scattered over almost a mile, plop them altogether, and create a skull out of pieces, and htis is the ‘closest relative’ we have? A walk i n the woods in a 1 mile radius would find many fragments of bones from many species- and one could collext the fragments and cobble together anythign they wish.”
The reason the remains were scattered about is because they were ape men suicide bombers.
LOL bttt
“Evolution today, evolution tomorrow, evolution forever.” ~ Combat_Liberalism
Why Darwinists Reject Evolution
Tiny Url: http://tiny.cc/9GRMF
<>
“Being that we are the image and likeness, we should expect to see traces of this in both our objective (i.e., bodily) and subjective (i.e., mental) states. Furthermore, there is no reason to believe that other animals shouldn’t share traces of this absoluteness, only in lesser forms, as they are “descended” from man, rather then vice versa.
“In other words, in relative, horizontal, and Darwinian terms, we may be “descended” from animals (or ascended, really), but in absolute and vertical terms the reverse is true. An ape is a partial manifestation of man; man is not a “perfect ape,” although Keith Olbermann comes close. ~ G.B.
More: http://tiny.cc/xQnTK
<>
“Also, a key point is that the lower animals are vertically descended from man, whereas horizontally speaking it is the reverse. Thus we see “traces of humanness” in the lower animals, and traces of animality in man.” ~ G. B.
“Yes, to say that Adam “names the animals” is to say that man knows their vertical essences.” ~ Petey
More: http://tiny.cc/SYz9q
<>
All the other vices flee from God, and only pride sets itself up against Him. —Boethius
“...But the [gospel] story somehow made immediate sense to two categories of people: those who were “poor in spirit,” with uncluttered minds and innocent hearts. But also to the super-sophisticated, those geniuses like a Gregory of Nyssa, or Augustine, or Denys the Areopagite, who had taken horizontal thought as far as it could go, and then beyond the horizon of knowability to the deeper realm of the unKnowable (unKnowing being a higher and deeper form of knowing).
“For me, of course, these are the most interesting cases. For unlike the purely secular intellectual, they do not place an arbitrary limit on thought and declare their own little ideas Supreme, like a child. Rather, they continue pushing through until achieving “vertical liftoff,” as in the case of an Eliot, Chesterton, Lewis, and so many others.
“Thought can lead to what is beyond it, but only for those who are both daring and humble (not to mention intelligent enough to pull it off; frankly, most of our secular priesthood are hopelessly middlebrow intellectual worker bees who know what they know, and that’s all they know). Far from being brave and independent thinkers, they cravenly “worship what is widely worshipped,” in the words of Berlinski.
“Suffice it to say, they can tell us “nothing of interest about the human soul.”
“And yet, their pride convinces them that they are somehow equipped “to face realities the rest of us cannot bear to contemplate.” I’ll believe that when Hitchens can bear to face reality sober. ...” ~ G.B.
More: http://tiny.cc/aIFjx
“Though an enormous amount of work has now gone into piecing together and analyzing the find, most readers of the headlines would be unaware of the way in which the fossil bits and pieces were scattered over a distance greater than 1½ kilometres! See Dr Don Batten’s 1994 report in Journal of Creation, Australopithecus ramidus—‘the missing link’?”
—“Ardi” was not spread over 1.5 km; the remains of numerous separate Ar. ramidus finds are spread over an area of 1.5 km. (The AiG article posted previously made the same mistake of confusing the 36 or so other Ar. ramidus finds with ‘Ardi’. I wonder if this is the beginning of another urban legend reminiscent of “Lucy’s knee”.)
“The latest claims made include that Ardipithecus is more dissimilar to both apes and humans than previously thought.”
—No, it’s more similar to humans than previously thought; but indeed more dissimilar to chimps (and other modern apes) than previously thought.
“And CT scans of australopithecine skulls show that the organs of balance (the ‘semi-circular canals”) were positioned in ways quite different from that required for a creature that walks habitually upright.”
—Wow, this claim is still being used? I would have thought that this claim would have died when it was discovered that Neandertal semicircular canals were also very small, and probably more similar to those of Australopithecines than those of modern humans. Strange that I never hear Creationists claim that Neandertals didn’t habitually walk upright.
Thanks for the ping!
[[—“Ardi” was not spread over 1.5 km; the remains of numerous separate Ar. ramidus finds are spread over an area of 1.5 km. (The AiG article posted previously made the same mistake of confusing the 36 or so other Ar. ramidus finds with ‘Ardi’. I wonder if this is the beginning of another urban legend reminiscent of “Lucy’s knee”.)]]
You have evidnece showing that the one called ‘Ardi’ that hte article mentions was all found in one spot I suppose?
[[—Wow, this claim is still being used? I would have thought that this claim would have died when it was discovered that Neandertal semicircular canals were also very small, and probably more similar to those of Australopithecines than those of modern humans.]]
Hmmm- first you say Aldi is ‘more ismilar to humans’, then you turn aroudn and state it’s more similar to Australopithecines than to humans-
[[—“Ardi” was not spread over 1.5 km; the remains of numerous separate Ar. ramidus finds are spread over an area of 1.5 km. (The AiG article posted previously made the same mistake of confusing the 36 or so other Ar. ramidus finds with ‘Ardi’. I wonder if this is the beginning of another urban legend reminiscent of “Lucy’s knee”.)]]
Sorry- but everythign I find on this states that IN ADDITION, more pieces to 36 other ‘individuals’ were found IN THE SAME AREA of 1.5 km- again- if you have info stating the one they put together and are talkign about was al lfound in a nice neat little area- then present it- I find no such statement, and every indicatio nthat al lthe pieces were ifnact spread over hte 1.5 km ALONG WITH more pieces they beleive belonged to other individuals
“Sorry- but everythign I find on this states that IN ADDITION, more pieces to 36 other ‘individuals’ were found IN THE SAME AREA of 1.5 km- again- if you have info stating the one they put together and are talkign about was al lfound in a nice neat little area- then present it- I find no such statement, and every indicatio nthat al lthe pieces were ifnact spread over hte 1.5 km ALONG WITH more pieces they beleive belonged to other individuals”
—Well, I’ve found nothing that implies anything as ludicrous (outside of Creationist sources) as the bones of a single individual being spread out over an area of 1.5 km. I’d be interested to see what your sources are.
Right now I’m looking at the map and pics they have in Science mag where they map out precisely where each piece of Ardi was found. It looks like most of the major pieces of Ardi were within an area of about 3 meters, with a few scraps spread out over another 3 meters or so. I don’t know if you’d consider that a “nice little area”, but ~6 meters is a whole lot less than 1500.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.