Ardipithecus ramidus (Fossils)Note that this entry is typical of the twenty "species" listed. While I was wroking from memory when I made my last post I have in this post gone to the exact page Virginia-American presented in evidence, atlaw, and as the exact quote shows my last post, even though from memory when made, is a fair enough rendering of the statements presented on that page.This species was named in September 1994 (White et al. 1994; Wood 1994). It was originally dated at 4.4 million years, but has since been discovered to far back as 5.8 million years. Most remains are skull fragments. Indirect evidence suggests that it was possibly bipedal, and that some individuals were about 122 cm (4'0") tall. The teeth are intermediate between those of earlier apes and A. afarensis, but one baby tooth is very primitive, resembling a chimpanzee tooth more than any other known hominid tooth. Other fossils found with ramidus indicate that it may have been a forest dweller. This may cause revision of current theories about why hominids became bipedal, which often link bipedalism with a move to a savannah environment. (White and his colleagues have since discovered a ramidus skeleton which is about 45% complete, but have not yet published on it.)
More recently, a number of fragmentary fossils discovered between 1997 and 2001, and dating from 5.2 to 5.8 million years old, have been assigned first to a new subspecies, Ardipithecus ramidus kadabba (Haile-Selassie 2001), and then later as a new species, Ardipithecus kadabba (Haile-Selassie et al. 2004). One of these fossils is a toe bone belonging to a bipedal creature, but is a few hundred thousand years younger than the rest of the fossils and so its identification with kadabba is not as firm as the other fossils.
Did YOU ignore that? What are you: ignorant of politeness or ignorant of process of law, despite the suggestuion your FR-handle gives? Not that this is law, it is not, yet it is a discussion and a less rude or less ignorant person can make a NEW point with new facts presented, without insults that would have me be a all-knowing individual to accept as fair criticism. I am not, like you, like anyone, my knowledge is limited to what I already have gone and learned, what now comes before my ken. I cannot accept your criticism, your comnplaint against me is ridiculuous. And what is your point? Beyond rudeness and ignorance, that is?
Summarize what you demand I "go and learn", yet perhaps your intellectual energy is not up to that level to digest information and summarize. Perhaps that is why you shortcut to rudeness. Which is it?
Yeah, yeah. I know. You're not about to go look for anything yourself. If it isn't summarized and laid at the foot of your La-Z-Boy, it doesn't exist. Point taken.
I have in this post gone to the exact page Virginia-American presented in evidence, atlaw, and as the exact quote shows my last post, even though from memory when made, is a fair enough rendering of the statements presented on that page. . . .
What a strange thing to say. Contrary to your your snarky statement in post 517 ("That site you linked to, iirc, makes a claim of a novel human species or subspecies based on only one artifact -- one teeny toe bone! Wow! Such wonderful *science*!"), you did not, in fact, recall the site correctly, and you did not provide a "fair enough rendering of the statements presented on that page." As the "exact quote" you provided shows, you didn't even come close to a "fair enough rendering."
And by the way, your snide and snickering misrepresentation in post 517 also renders rather toothless your claim that you are now a victim of just-awful-rudeness.