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.
Well, so far, only man is the one doing the talking and writing.
The reason is that man has a soul and the rest of God's creatures do not (with the exception of Angels)
Now, where is your soul going to spend eternity?
Which is a slim margin of a fly speck compared to evolutionary time.
We have not grown wings to fly or gill to swim the seas or even coats of fur to protect us from the harsh winters.
If we had wings could we compete with the robins in eating worms and bugs?
If we had gills could we compete with sharks for cuttlefish and seals?
If we had a fur coat could we compete with bears for salmon and berries?
We are what we are because we happened upon a niche in the environment that we could effectively compete in -- and eventually became the master of.
Our feet are so tender we have to wear shoes if left to ourselves from birth we would die.
Uh, There's millions of people in Africa and Asia that haven't worn nor ever will wear shoes.
And just about every mammal is helpless from birth. Why would you expect the human mammal to be any different?
So where is the proof that we are changing into some higher life form?
As long as life is reproducing there will be mutations. Those with very negative mutations will not survive long enough to reproduce, if they manage to be born at all. The remaining folks will have mutations that are negative, neutral, or beneficial depending on the environment.
End result is not a "higher life form", just a different "life form".
hmm, tagline runner-up
Well, Webster has Fish defined as any animal in the sea, so whale qualifies.
Stop trying to play word games. I am not. I am pointing out that your definitions do not match the definitions used by biologists, nor have they ever matched since biologists began classifying organisms.
They do not match the definitions of modern biologists.
Besides, in word usage there is always a broader and narrower use of a word.
To use fish with whale in its broader sense is totally proper and accurate.
A whale can be considered a fish in the broad sense since it is in the water, hence 'fish-like'. Not when speaking of taxonomic classification, which is based upon very specific features of an organism.
Well, we are speaking about the legimate use of a term and if one calls a whale a fish, using the broad sense (as an animal in the water) it would be accurate based on the Webster defintion of the term.
A 'fish' is defined by Websters 1828, 'an animal that lives in the water' As I have pointed out, when speaking of biological terms, it is helpful to refer to the definitions used by biologists. In this case, your definition would appear to be significantly out of date.
No, we are not speaking of the word in its narrow term, but in its broad term, and fish in the broad sense can refer to any creature in the sea.
Evolutionists think that by changing the terms they can change the reality. No one is attempting to change reality. Whales are warm blooded, give live birth and the females of the species have mammaries. Those features are sufficient to classify whales as mammals rather than fish. Fish are not mammals.
If you want to narrow the definition, but if one wants to keep it in its broad sense, fish is still a legimate term to use for whale.
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 This appears to be an argument based in poor semantics rather than actual fact, given that the original language of the book of Matthew was not English.
Well every English translation before 1611 has whale for the Greek word.
So does the modern KJ21, Even the Spanish Bible (1865) has it.
In fact, according to biology the cete is a whale and the Greek word in Matthew is cetous.
As for the Webster definition being out of date, here is more recent one. .2.Any of various other aquatic animals.(The American College Dictionary, 1963)
Nah. The banning of eff-dot and Gore3K (1720).
It does until something changes in some other animal.
Until then, man is unique and that uniqueness has to be accounted for.
The reason is that man has a soul and the rest of God's creatures do not (with the exception of Angels) Even if your unsubstantiated assertion is correct, it does not change the biological realities that have led to the classification of humans as animals. Biological classifications do not consider the presence or lack of a "soul". Taxonomic classifications are based purely upon observable physical traits of an organism. Even if humans have a "soul", as you claim, this does not mean that they are not biologically animals.
Well, you seem to want limit everything to biology, but man is more then flesh and blood.
You have to account for the human mind, which is more then simply the mechanical workings of the brain.
Now, where is your soul going to spend eternity? I do not know. Thus far I have not seen evidence for the existence of a soul. This question is not relevant to a discussion on biology or evolution.
Well, on the contrary, it is very relevant, since man is unique.
You are an individual that God sent His Son to die for so you could spend eternity with Him and not in hell.
He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life, and he that believeth not shall not see life, but the wrath of God abideth on him. (Jn.3:36)
You have a soul and when you die it will exist somewhere,in either heaven or hell, the choice is yours, something else that makes us different then animals, free will.
Yep. All ceteans are born with hair around their snouts and blowholes. But the folicles stop producing as they become adults.
Humpback whales are an exception, the distinct tubercles (or bumps) has a thick hair sticking out of each.
Some reasearchers argue that keratin comb of baleen in C. mysceti is "hair".
Well, we have the kingdom Animalia-Except-Humans and the brand spanking new kingdom Humans.
This is weird since when I was growing up (YEC) I was taught that people fell into the category of animals, but we were more than just animals.
1. We've barely been around for 100,000 years, that's essentially nothing, yet we do continue to change morphologically and genetically. Check back in a couple million years on the progress.
2. Why do you think we'd change into a "higher" life form?
Who knew Neanderthals were talented interior decorators?
I'm not one to swallow every proposition of science whole cloth without question. Maybe you are. Since you're one who mistakes philosophy for science it would be no surprise.
Did you ever do the microwave experiment?
As I recall, the microwave expirement was suggested to demonstrate that the speed of light is constant. Do you really think such a suggestion is practical? Exactly how do you propose measuring the speed of light at the time of the big bang? I think you keeping bringing it up because you want some of my chocolate.
Even assuming that "fish" once centuries ago was used in the vernacular to speak of any aquatic animal, let's consider that word meanings are not static. If you've got the KJV the NKJV has some words changed because the current meaning of the original English word is now different and sometimes completely reversed. It would be daft to expect everyone to change their conversational English to conform to KJV English on the grounds that that is "correct" and that words' evolution over the centuries is just "word games."
So perhaps once centuries ago uneducated peasants referred to fish, whales, seals, penguins, starfish, and crabs as "fish." Science needs rational classifications in order to operate. Therefore, scientists set up a system of rules to determine which grouping an animal belongs to. The fish are aquatic finned vertebrates with gills.
According to your slapdash categorization "fish" is "anything aquatic." According to the more precise sense, "fish" is "an aquatic finned vertebrate with gills." Now because I'm not entirely loopy I'm not going to say your definition is wrong like there's some sort of Platonic type of fish floating around in the ether (like you seem to think of your definition) and the word "fish" must always refer to this, I'm just going to say it's sloppy and useless and a personal meaning not held by, oh, anyone else in the world who has passed high school biology. Now why are you trying to tell everyone else to change their terminology to suit you?
It's funny that you seem to think that you can change the reality by changing the terms. A rose by any name would smell as sweet. A whale no matter what you call it is not an aquatic finned vertebrate with gills.
How ironic. You'll accept the Biblical account without question; indeed when it is pointed out (and evidence presented that) the Biblical accounts cannot have happened as described, you are willing to toss out that data to cling to an unfounded belief.
Your cred, what little you had on these threads, has just gone out the window. Convsersing with you, and your Orwellian mentality, would simply be an exercise in frustration.
First of all, you sound totally ridiculous. It amazes me that you evidently don't realize what a spectacle you're making of yourself.
Secondly, in Matthew 12:40 Jesus does not refer to the whale that swallowed Jonas as a "fish"; so you have it wrong even on a scriptural basis. I realize that the New International Version translates it that way, but most version don't, because that translation is wrong. The word in the original Greek is koitos which is used to refer to whales or sea monsters (cetacean actually derives from it - not that you probably have any clue what a cetacean is - "cetacean" is the scientific term for a whale). If the original Greek said fish, then the word would be ichthys.
Third, education is not a luxury. Rest assured that no matter where you might be in life, learning a fact or two would improve your lot.
Use much stronger line next time you go fishing!
===> Placemarker <===
Plus non, moins sequitur
Nice one. We used to call that a "burn" when I was in school.
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.