The loggerhead turtle. Properly classified as a fish.
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.
Man is a featherless biped with broad flat nails.
Yes, the biblical texts are the standard by which I judge the other information coming my way. It is not my prerogative to question the authority of the biblical texts not only because I consider them to be reliable and generally reasonable on the face of it, but also because they testify of themselves as having been written by the Creator. The same cannot be said of human documents such as science textbooks. They demand questions and evaluation in light of the standard to which my reason and senses are constrained.
So far there has been no physical evidence presented that would cause me to conclude, for example, that intelligent design is either uninvolved or unnecessary in a universe that demonstrates intelligible processes and allows the intelligent communication essential to science in the first place.
Apparently you have some other reason for assuming intelligent design has little or nothing to do with organized matter that performs specific functions. Maybe it's your gut feeling. Whatever it is, it does not warrant consideration beyond yourself. Why you choose not to admit your assumptions, why you consider them to be untouchable in terms of debate, and why you think your assumptions should by law enjoy a sole hearing in the public school classroom are questions you ought to be willing to address, but instead you choose to huff and puff about my credibility. So be it.
If you are expecting a single generation transitional form between two separate species, we do not and will not have one. Evolution does not suggest that a cat can give birth to a dog or a hippo give birth to a whale in one generation. What evolution does say is that a noticeable difference between the two end species along a transitionary path will be filled with many transitions where the differences are minor.
If you are looking for what you should be looking for, a snapshot of a single organism from among the many between the two end points then we have quite a few examples. What a transitional fossil should look like is an organism that contains some morphological features similar to the starting organism and some similar to the end organism. It should also have some morphological features that are somewhere in between those of the beginning organism and those of the end organisms.
For example, if the beginning organism has long rear legs with hip connections able to support weight, a skull with the neck connection at a distinct angle from the horizontal, and nostrils at the tip of the nose but the end organism has short or nonexistent rear legs with a hip connect unable to withstand weight, a skull with the neck connection at the horizontal and nostrils on the top of the head, we would expect to find fossils showing a gradual change in these features from the beginning to the end organism.
This is exactly what we find in the Artiodacyl(even toed ungulate) to Cetecean(whale) lineage. Through a number of fossils the rear legs shorten and separate from the hip making the connection weaker. This shows a gradual change from land based to water based existence. Through the same fossils there is a change in the head-neck connection angle, going from an angle similar to that a dog's to what is now found in whales. There is also a movement of the nostrils from the end of the nose to near the top of the head within those fossils.
Those three morphological changes are but a few of the many changes evidenced in the fossils we have found that span the time between whale ancestors being land animals and whales being water animals.
We also have transitional fossils between amphibians and reptiles, reptiles to mammals, and dinosaurs to birds.
That is not the question I answered. My answer was to your question:
""From the moment your are born you are headed for death you are dying you are breaking down."
You were implying that organisms on Earth are winding down, becoming less than their ancestors. In effect dying out. I stated that humans as individuals do not 'wind down' during the first twenty some odd years and that the human species as a whole is not 'winding down' and becoming less than our ancestors.
How many years did it take for man to evolve from what, the Chimp-Human common ancestor? About ~6 million years.
I assume by oyster you mean bivalve. Depends on the evolutionary path that particular oyster is part of.
"One question what have you been smoking how much is it and can I buy some?
You've just entered the realm of ignorance. If you have reached the end of rational argument and have to resort to personal attacks I'll assume you have no desire to learn and no capacity to debate.
Sorry for the intrusion KP.
"Get an ape to do it.
Is the ability to communicate a difference or only the manner of communication? Gorillas and Chimps have been taught to communicate through sign language and Chimps regularly teach their offspring to use tools.
Sorry but animals do communicate.
Chimps can also type on a keyboard. They do not know how to produce language on the keyboard but this is no different than sticking a human such as yourself in front of a keyboard that types in only ancient Sanskrit and expecting you to produce coherent language.
What other differences are there? Give me something well defined, not just something that is a matter of degree. Perhaps give me a morphological difference as well.
I'm sorry sir but you are the one playing games with words. In your attempt to place humans outside of taxonomy you have cherry picked your definitions from sources that quite frankly follow common use of language rather than define it. You must ask yourself, where do the publishers of dictionaries get the definitions they publish?
I'll save you some time. They get it from common use and older publications. Languages change over time, and the publishers of dictionaries follow that evolution they do not lead.
language - Other animals communicate with formalized vocalizations and body language. A matter of degree only.
creativity - Other great apes have shown creativity in their tool use. A matter of degree only.
love - Other great apes have show 'love' for their offspring and in at least one case a kitten. Possibly a matter of degree, possibly even less than that.
holiness - This one is untestable and in my humble opinion fantasy. In any case it has no bearing in the physical world.
immortality - This is untestable and again probably fantasy.
freedom - This one is undefined and could mean anything. Until it becomes well defined it is a non-point.
Boy this guy was really reaching wasn't he?
You have finally given up on any pretense of having a scientific argument. Good for you.
The loggerhead turtle. Properly classified as a fish.
Ooooh, so that's what it means to be "at loggerheads."
Can't tell a fish from a turtle from a whale.
Amazing how Creationtionism expands the horizons of science.
Hey, there's this definition of fish from Webster's too:
A person who is caught or is wanted (as in a criminal investigation).
Or this one:
Hamilton 1808-1893 American statesman; U.S. secretary of state (1869-77); negotiated settlement of "Alabama Claims" (1871) and settlement from Spain for seizure of Virginia (1873)
Maybe that's what fortheDeclaration meant too. We must not be constrained by a too narrow definition now. :)
|
|
Or not. |
What Webster??? From Borneo?
1. any various cold-blooded, completely aquatic vertebrates, having gills, commonly fins, and typically an elongated body covered with scales.
Websters Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary - Deluxe.
Whales are warm blooded, don't have gills and have hair not gills. Turtles don't have gills, breathe air and don't have scales.
The point here, is that this is just the kind of redefinition of words (WRONGLY!!!) that Creationistists, (read ID advocates) always indulge in. Change the meaning of words to mean whatever they want.
Evolution isn't FAITH, Creationism is. Intelligent Design isn't SCIENCE, evolution is. You can redefine for the masses all you want and it doesn't change the facts. Just because polls show that a majority of the masses don't understand reality, only points up how shoddy the American education system is, not how knowledgable the people are.
This discussion being a case in point.
We can't rule any out!
And I have to say, I only followed this thread because I found the posts of one John 6.66=Mark of the Beast? so absurdly entertaining. This person demonstrates precisely why ID should not be introduced in government schools in any fashion. (But then, I don't think there should be any government schools at all, THAT would solve the problem.)
The irrationality displayed is beyond classic, it is sheer beauty. Like a Fellini movie. Surrealism at its best.
I too have been watching this thread.
It is amusing to see creationists trying to tell scientists how to define the terms they use.
So, in their honor (and to see if there is any life in this hoary old thread), some definitions from a google search, with additions from this thread:
Theory: a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena; "theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses." Addendum: "Theories do not grow up to be laws. Theories explain laws." (Courtesy of VadeRetro.)
Theory: A scientifically testable general principle or body of principles offered to explain observed phenomena. In scientific usage, a theory is distinct from a hypothesis (or conjecture) that is proposed to explain previously observed phenomena. For a hypothesis to rise to the level of theory, it must predict the existence of new phenomena that are subsequently observed. A theory can be overturned if new phenomena are observed that directly contradict the theory. [Source]
When a scientific theory has a long history of being supported by verifiable evidence, it is appropriate to speak about "acceptance" of (not "belief" in) the theory; or we can say that we have "confidence" (not "faith") in the theory. It is the dependence on verifiable data and the capability of testing that distinguish scientific theories from matters of faith.
Hypothesis: a tentative theory about the natural world; a concept that is not yet verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena; "a scientific hypothesis that survives experimental testing becomes a scientific theory"; "he proposed a fresh theory of alkalis that later was accepted in chemical practices."
Proof: Except for math and geometry, there is little that is actually proved. Even well-established scientific theories can't be conclusively proved, because--at least in principle--a counter-example might be discovered. Scientific theories are always accepted provisionally, and are regarded as reliable only because they are supported (not proved) by the verifiable facts they purport to explain and by the predictions which they successfully make. All scientific theories are subject to revision (or even rejection) if new data are discovered which necessitates this.
Law: a generalization that describes recurring facts or events in nature; "the laws of thermodynamics."
Model: a simplified representation designed to illuminate complex processes; a hypothetical description of a complex entity or process; a physical or mathematical representation of a process that can be used to predict some aspect of the process.
Speculation: a hypothesis that has been formed by speculating or conjecturing (usually with little hard evidence). When a scientist speculates he is drawing on experience, patterns and somewhat unrelated things that are known or appear to be likely. This becomes a very informed guess.
Guess: an opinion or estimate based on incomplete evidence, or on little or no information.
Assumption: premise: a statement that is assumed to be true and from which a conclusion can be drawn; "on the assumption that he has been injured we can infer that he will not to play"
Impression: a vague or subjective idea in which some confidence is placed; "his impression of her was favorable"; "what are your feelings about the crisis?"; "it strengthened my belief in his sincerity"; "I had a feeling that she was lying."
Opinion: a personal belief or judgment that is not founded on proof or certainty.
Observation: any information collected with the senses.
Data: factual information, especially information organized for analysis or used to reason or make decisions.
Fact: when an observation is confirmed repeatedly and by many independent and competent observers, it can become a fact.
Religion: Theistic: 1. the belief in a superhuman controlling power, esp. in a personal God or gods entitled to obedience and worship. 2. the expression of this in worship. 3. a particular system of faith and worship.
Religion: Non-Theistic: The word religion has many definitions, all of which can embrace sacred lore and wisdom and knowledge of God or gods, souls and spirits. Religion deals with the spirit in relation to itself, the universe and other life. Essentially, religion is belief in spiritual beings. As it relates to the world, religion is a system of beliefs and practices by means of which a group of people struggles with the ultimate problems of human life.
Belief: any cognitive content (perception) held as true; religious faith.
Faith: the belief in something for which there is no material evidence or empirical proof; acceptance of ideals, beliefs, etc., which are not necessarily demonstrable through experimentation or observation. A strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny.
Dogma: a religious doctrine that is proclaimed as true without proof.
Based on these, evolution is a theory. CS and ID are beliefs.
[Last revised 2/23/06]
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.
