Posted on 03/24/2006 11:47:46 AM PST by The_Victor
ADDIS ABABA (Reuters) - A hominid skull discovered in Ethiopia could fill the gap in the search for the origins of the human race, a scientist said on Friday.
The cranium, found near the city of Gawis, 500 km (300 miles) southeast of the capital Addis Ababa, is estimated to be 200,000 to 500,000 years old.
The skull appeared "to be intermediate between the earlier Homo erectus and the later Homo sapiens," Sileshi Semaw, an Ethiopian research scientist at the Stone Age Institute at Indiana University, told a news conference in Addis Ababa.
It was discovered two months ago in a small gully at the Gawis river drainage basin in Ethiopia's Afar region, southeast of the capital.
Sileshi said significant archaeological collections of stone tools and numerous fossil animals were also found at Gawis.
"(It) opens a window into an intriguing and important period in the development of modern humans," Sileshi said.
Over the last 50 years, Ethiopia has been a hot bed for archaeological discoveries.
Hadar, located near Gawis, is where in 1974 U.S. scientist Donald Johnson found the 3.2 million year old remains of "Lucy," described by scientists as one of the greatest archaeological discoveries in the world.
Lucy is Ethiopia's world-acclaimed archaeological find. The discovery of the almost complete hominid skeleton was a landmark in the search for the origins of humanity.
On the shores of what was formerly a lake in 1967, two Homo sapien skulls dating back 195,000 years were unearthed. The discovery pushed back the known date of mankind, suggesting that modern man and his older precursor existed side by side.
Sileshi said while different from a modern human, the braincase, upper face and jaw of the cranium have unmistakeable anatomical evidence that belong to human ancestry.
"The Gawis cranium provides us with the opportunity to look at the face of one of our ancestors," he added.
[information-free apologia screed snipped to save bandwidth]
Alleged difficulties with standard geological interpretations are not evidence for the flood, which was what was requested. Come on, this event supposedly happened only around 4000 years ago. Where is the physical evidence *for* it.
Check out post 50 again, and tell us if any of the fossils B thru M look intermediate between A (modern chimp) & N (modern human) to you.
AFAIK, the big objection was dulling the pain of childbirth - part of the Fall
Very interesting web site:
UTOPIAN SURGERY Early arguments against anaesthesia in surgery, dentistry and childbirth
Despite its obvious advantages, pain-free surgery, dentistry and (especially) pain-free childbirth were opposed by a conservative minority.
The City of Zurich initially outlawed anaesthesia altogether. "Pain is a natural and intended curse of the primal sin. Any attempt to do away with it must be wrong", averred the Zurich City Fathers (Harpers (1865); 31: 456-7).
...
In England, at least, the practice of anaesthesia during childbirth won greater respectability following its widely-publicised use on Queen Victoria. The delivery in 1853 of Victoria's eighth child and youngest son, Prince Leopold, was successful: chloroform was administered by Dr John Snow (1813-1858) of Edinburgh, the world's first anaesthesiologist/anaesthetist.
...
In 1847 Snow had published On the Inhalation of Ether in Surgical Operations, a scientific milestone. "Dr Snow gave that blessed chloroform and the effect was soothing, quieting and delightful beyond measure", Her Majesty reported.
...
If the Queen had died in consequence, then the progress of anaesthesia might have been set back a generation; fortunately, she survived unscathed. Anaesthesia à la reine even became fashionable in high society.
I was on a whale watch cruise off Cape Cod a number of years ago. This whale came right up next to the ship, and I could see **big** hairs around its blow hole. Big, like as thick as a pencil.
The naturalist on the cruise had passed around baleen and whale ear bones. The bones were the size of a softball!
Linnaeus put people and apes in the same group. He was a creationist.
Aristotle said (in the "Politics") . "Man is the only animal that has the gift of speech."
Actually, there are a few things that can be predicted about human evolution. One of them is:
Our descendants will have fewer teeth than we do.
Proof:
Wisdom teeth barely fit within our jaws. Occasionally, someone will have an abscess when a wisdom tooth erupts. Occasionally, even with modern dentistry, this is fatal before he has had any children. When this happens, the genes for wisdom teeth are less common than they were before.
Q friggin ED
Your writing on this forum is one.
Get an ape to do it.
Check out the definition in the OED, which I posted.
Evolutionists think that by changing the terms they can change the reality.
>blink<
>blink<
>rubs eyes<
>reads this again<
No, you would be human.
You just think like a vegetable.
My apologies, I had forgotten the specifics of your inital claim regarding whales. You did not deny that they are mammals, but instead denied that they are animals. This, however, is also false, as all mammals are animals.
All humans are placental mammals.
All placental mammals are animals.
Therefore humans are animals.
Go for it! The whole world is out there waiting for Uncle Fester to overturn 140 years of biology ...
Then let me think for myself.
On the slim chance that you'll ever think for yourself, the only one that's stopping you is you.
Unless you do this you are asking me to take other people's word for things.
Did you ever do the microwave experiment?
No? If not, then you'll have to take the word of those that have. Unless, of course, you plan to continue demonstrating your ignorance.
Maybe you should consider why those that have science experience hold a different opinion from those that don't.
Biologists are always changing their definitions.
Stop trying to play word games.
A whale can be considered a fish in the broad sense since it is in the water, hence 'fish-like'.
A 'fish' is defined by Websters 1828, 'an animal that lives in the water'
Evolutionists think that by changing the terms they can change the reality.
I suspect that your claim that whales are fish and that they are not mammals will not be shared even by a good number of creationists.
Well, if they don't then they are rejecting the definition that the Lord Jesus Christ gave it in Matthew 12:40 when He described the 'fish' which swallowed Jonah as a whale
No, no other 'mammal' thinks or writes
Man an animal We can think of man as placed halfway between God and the animals, possessing characteristics of each. Physiologically and anatomically man is an animal. He even shares the genetic code with them. Evolutionists call him a human primate. Much of his behavior is controlled by Pavlovian conditioned reflexes.
The Genesis account recognizes important similarities between man and the animals. Of man we read ‘God formed man of the dust of the ground … .’ (Genesis 2:7) And of the animals, ‘Now the Lord God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field.’ (Genesis 2:19) Animals are described as ‘living creatures’ (Genesis 1:20), and man a ‘living being’ (Genesis 2:7), the Hebrew word ‘naphesh’ (breath) being used for both. Concerning the effects of the flood we are told, ‘Everything on dry land that had the breath of life in its nostrils died. Every living thing … men and animals, and the creatures that move along the ground and the birds of the air were wiped out.’ (Genesis 7:22-23)
Later, it is explained that the ‘life’ (naphesh) is in the blood (Genesis 9:4). Thus breathed-in life (naphesh) is not the essential factor which distinguishes man from animals. Something further is required.
God regards man differently from the animals. The Bible account is primarily concerned with the relationship between God and man. Man was created by God, in his image, for God’s joy and glory, and exists only in the context of God. It is because God is (Hebrews 11:8) that man has being (Acts 17:28). True, the earth and animals too have a place in God’s economy, but essentially, the world was created as a place for man to live (e.g. Romans 8:19-22).
God’s attributes shared with man The main impact of the image is that God endues man with some of his divine attributes, thereby separating and making him different from the beasts. (emphasis added) What are these special Godlike qualities which man is permitted to share? I shall mention six: language, creativity, love, holiness, immortality and freedom. You will probably be able to add to this list. All can be summed up by saying that man, like God, has an intelligence, a mind.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v4/i1/man.asp
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.