Skip to comments.
Skull discovery could fill origins gap
Yahoo (Reuters) ^
| Fri Mar 24, 11:02 AM ET
Posted on 03/24/2006 11:47:46 AM PST by The_Victor
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 441-449 next last
To: The_Victor
Here's the only picture from
their website I could find:
From the press release, it sounds like they also found an upper jaw in addition to what's pictured here.
41
posted on
03/24/2006 12:50:17 PM PST
by
jennyp
(WHAT I'M READING NOW: your mind)
To: ImaGraftedBranch
"If I could be in a line of work where I could provide an answer such as "anywhere from 200,000 to 500,000 years old" in response to a question like "how old is this skeleton," and GET PAID for that answer, I would have a much less stressful life.
Sheesh."
It still wasn't carbon dated.
And the bones of the three individuals you mentioned would be called human.
:)
42
posted on
03/24/2006 12:51:04 PM PST
by
CarolinaGuitarman
("There is grandeur in this view of life...")
To: PatrickHenry
I'd love to see photos of it.
43
posted on
03/24/2006 12:53:07 PM PST
by
Dog Gone
To: ImaGraftedBranch
If I could be in a line of work Well go for it.
All it takes is 8 years of University, a higher than average intelligence,
and a burning desire to find the truth.
44
posted on
03/24/2006 12:53:11 PM PST
by
ASA Vet
(Condi would be a coup in the NFL)
To: ImaGraftedBranch
Would these scientists describe three DIFFERENT species? Of course they would! And it would ALSO be ridiculous. In addition to what Coyoteman said, we also know from direct observation that Andre the Giant, Shaq, and Warwick Davis are all outliers within the contemporary human population. So for archaeologists to find only those three people and none of the vast majority of humans that are much more representative samples of H. sapiens would be very, very unlikely.
Which means your scenario is a fine example of creationist argument. >:-)
45
posted on
03/24/2006 12:54:17 PM PST
by
jennyp
(WHAT I'M READING NOW: your mind)
To: Lurking Libertarian
To: blam; SunkenCiv; aculeus; thefactor
47
posted on
03/24/2006 1:02:39 PM PST
by
Pharmboy
(The stone age didn't end because they ran out of stones.)
To: RightWhale
I dunno. We keep creating two gaps when there was only one. Pretty soon there'll be nothing but gaps and everything will cease to exist.
To: ASA Vet; orionblamblam
I am ashamed of both of you!
Speaking as an on-duty public university employee..
To: RoadTest; ImaGraftedBranch
Which of the following are "just an old ape" and which are "just an old human"? Try it, it's fun!
Fossil hominid skulls. Some of the figures have been modified for ease of comparison
(only left-right mirroring or removal of a jawbone). (Images © 2000 Smithsonian Institution.)
- (A) Pan troglodytes, chimpanzee, modern
- (B) Australopithecus africanus, STS 5, 2.6 My
- (C) Australopithecus africanus, STS 71, 2.5 My
- (D) Homo habilis, KNM-ER 1813, 1.9 My
- (E) Homo habilis, OH24, 1.8 My
- (F) Homo rudolfensis, KNM-ER 1470, 1.8 My
- (G) Homo erectus, Dmanisi cranium D2700, 1.75 My
- (H) Homo ergaster (early H. erectus), KNM-ER 3733, 1.75 My
- (I) Homo heidelbergensis, "Rhodesia man", 300,000 - 125,000 y
- (J) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, La Ferrassie 1, 70,000 y
- (K) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, La Chappelle-aux-Saints, 60,000 y
- (L) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, Le Moustier, 45,000 y
- (M) Homo sapiens sapiens, Cro-Magnon I, 30,000 y
- (N) Homo sapiens sapiens, modern
We know that A) is a modern chimpanzee and N) is a modern human. Your challenge is to fill in these blanks:
Fossil |
Just an ape |
Ape-like transitional |
Human-like transitional |
Just a human |
Not related at all to apes or humans |
B |
[_] |
[_] |
[_] |
[_] |
[_] |
C |
[_] |
[_] |
[_] |
[_] |
[_] |
D |
[_] |
[_] |
[_] |
[_] |
[_] |
E |
[_] |
[_] |
[_] |
[_] |
[_] |
F |
[_] |
[_] |
[_] |
[_] |
[_] |
G |
[_] |
[_] |
[_] |
[_] |
[_] |
H |
[_] |
[_] |
[_] |
[_] |
[_] |
I |
[_] |
[_] |
[_] |
[_] |
[_] |
J |
[_] |
[_] |
[_] |
[_] |
[_] |
K |
[_] |
[_] |
[_] |
[_] |
[_] |
L |
[_] |
[_] |
[_] |
[_] |
[_] |
M |
[_] |
[_] |
[_] |
[_] |
[_] |
The Responses So Far:
Person |
B Australopithecus africanus |
C Australopithecus africanus |
D Homo habilis |
E Homo habilis |
F Homo rudolfensis |
G Homo erectus |
H Homo ergaster |
I Homo heidelbergensis |
J Homo sapiens neanderthalensis |
K Homo sapiens neanderthalensis |
L Homo sapiens sapiens (Cro-Magnon) |
Mainstream scientists |
ape-like |
ape-like |
ape-like, human-like |
ape-like, human-like |
human-like |
human-like |
human-like |
human-like |
human-like |
human-like |
human |
editor-surveyor |
ape |
ape |
ape |
ape |
ape |
ape |
ape |
ape |
human |
human |
human |
Michael_Michaelangelo |
ape |
ape |
ape |
ape |
ape |
ape |
ape |
ape |
human |
human |
human |
MississippiMan |
|
|
|
|
|
|
ape |
|
|
|
|
50
posted on
03/24/2006 1:06:00 PM PST
by
jennyp
(WHAT I'M READING NOW: your mind)
To: ImaGraftedBranch
If I could be in a line of work where I could provide an answer such as "anywhere from 200,000 to 500,000 years old" in response to a question like "how old is this skeleton," and GET PAID for that answer, I would have a much less stressful life.Ain't dat da troof!
51
posted on
03/24/2006 1:06:47 PM PST
by
KMJames
To: ASA Vet
That last bit's going to cause trouble.
To: The_Victor
Or maybe it can fill the space on the props shelf at Dreamworks
53
posted on
03/24/2006 1:15:11 PM PST
by
street_lawyer
(Conservative Defender of the Faith)
To: orionblamblam
I'm a grad student so I have a double whammy--I must be being brainwashed by the establishment and my mercenary research is paid for by NIH.
54
posted on
03/24/2006 1:22:53 PM PST
by
ahayes
To: PatrickHenry
Comment #56 Removed by Moderator
To: jennyp
Oh, give me a break. I do statistical forecasting in my line of business, so I am very familiar with the math as I do the calcs on a daily basis. Just to let you know, you need a decent POPULATION to study before you can CALL something an outlier. The point I was making was that when the number of skeletons are few, calculations can NOT be exact enough to say whether you are dealing with a representative population, or you are dealing strictly with outliers.
OBVIOUSLY, the three I mentioned were outliers, which is my point! Scientists, in their zeal to find a missing link, would much rather declare new species for the three examples than to say there was a possibility they were all the same species. Get it?
57
posted on
03/24/2006 1:57:32 PM PST
by
ImaGraftedBranch
("Toleration" has never been affiliated with the virtuous. Think about it.)
Comment #58 Removed by Moderator
To: Tokra
Gee, only a 300,000 year gap between the
assumed date of the skull.
And the skull is assumed to be a hominid, something that cannot even be proven to have existed.
What great science.
Comment #60 Removed by Moderator
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 441-449 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson