Ancient fossils fill gap in early human evolution

Yahoo ^ | 4/12/06 | Patricia Reaney

[Sofa King]

LONDON (Reuters) - An international team of scientists have discovered 4.1 million year old fossils in eastern Ethiopia that fill a missing gap in human evolution. ADVERTISEMENT

The teeth and bones belong to a primitive species of Australopithecus known as Au. anamensis, an ape-man creature that walked on two legs.

[Dimensio]

So you are not going to admit that you were mistaken in your claims? Why is this?

[js1138]

There seems to be a fungus amungus.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"Sorry CG, but I am not in the least bit embarrassed."

You should be, you're making a fool of yourself.

"As I said, I didn't write the articles or make the claims."

Are you saying that you didn't make this post? :

Didn't they find dinosaur DNA? Wouldn't it have to be millions of years old?

34 posted on 04/12/2006 4:41:12 PM EDT by mlc9852
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]

and:

They have found dinosaur DNA. I read it right here on FR recently.

35 posted on 04/12/2006 4:41:50 PM EDT by mlc9852

??

Did you not, when asked for a citation, post this link?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7285683/

THIS is the *recent find* YOU claimed said that DNA was found from a dino. Except... the article said NO SUCH THING. YOU made claims that you couldn't back up, then got tricked with an April fools column that anybody with even a High School science background should have seen through.

Again, you are making a fool of yourself. That this does not shame you says a lot about you. It's hilarious too to think how much evolution backers get pummeled for their alleged moral inadequeices, yet here you are incapable of admitting you were wrong.

[js1138]

Folks like DaveLoneRanger and several others have a lot invested in the dino DNA find. When it becomes clear there isn't any, they will be shouting conspiracy.

[mlc9852]

I have never claimed to personally have found any dinosaur DNA so I really am at a loss to figure out why you think I have. I did not write the articles posted nor did I say they were true. The fact that you seem so obsessed with this is quite strange. If I had said I believe dinosaur DNA had been found because I had first-hand knowledge of it, that would be a mistake. To post articles written by scientists is what is done all the time on FR.

You may think it is embarrassing to me but it isn't. I am off to lunch now but will return to continue the arguments if you so desire.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"I have never claimed to personally have found any dinosaur DNA so I really am at a loss to figure out why you think I have."

I didn't say that YOU made the discovery, I said (correctly) that YOU made the claim that scientists had recently found DNA in dinosaurs. You provided a link that was supposed to support this claim, but it said the opposite. It said that NO DNA was found. Get it? YOUR claim was a lot of crap. Then you post a link to an April fools column because you didn't know enough that it was a joke. THEN you posted dino DNA claims (long since found to be false) from 12 and 13 years ago. These OBVIOUSLY were NOT the find you claimed was posted recently here on FR. Now you are being disingenuous about it, trying to wiggle out of it like a DUmmie. Your dishonesty is getting tiresome.

"You may think it is embarrassing to me but it isn't."

That you have no shame is part of your problem.

" I am off to lunch now but will return to continue the arguments if you so desire."

Take your time.

[js1138]

You posted an April Fool's joke to back up your (very serious) claim that dino DNA had been found. Your other sources have been discussed many time in FR, and since you have been a regular on these threads, you know that claims of dino DNA have been examined and found to be in error.

The only things left to explore are whether you have enough personal honesty to admit you have made a mistake, and whether you are clever enough to start questioning the integrity of your sources.

[js1138]

The claim is often made that these discussions don't convert anyone and don't make any difference. This is not true.

My first posts here were regarding some manufactured Darwin quotes, allegedly from a specific biography of Darwin. I happened to know where I could get this biography, so I did. I scanned the pages for which the quotes allegedly came and demonstrated that the creationist websites had taken two partial sentences and spliced them together.

When I posted my expose, there were hundreds of hits on google for this quote. The last time I looked there were none.

FR is the most widely read forum on the net. It has twice as many unique visitors as Drudge. It makes a difference.

[ahayes]

That isn't an April Fool's joke. It's from a Science article from March 2005. Dr. Schweitzer demineralized fragments of fossil and recovered a flexible network that appears to be derived from connective tissue and blood vessels. No word on the actual composition of the material. There was some indication of antigenicity, but it's doubtful that anything but degraded fragments of proteins remain.

The problem is that the YECs leaped on this immediately and started harking it as the discovery of "raw flesh," completely missing the fact that the minerals had to be removed first, the fragments recovered are on the order of 1/8 inch, and there is no evidence that the original biomolecules survived intact.

Oh yes, and no DNA.

[ahayes]

Ahh! Yes, this is an April Fool's joke!

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"Ahh! Yes, this is an April Fool's joke!"

Yep. The first article was the one that was supposed to have said that DNA was found. It wasn't and the article didn't say there was. Then I was pinged to the second one, the fake article. Apparently this one looked to good to our creo friend, who didn't see the hilarity of the claims. So then I was pinged to 12 and 13 year old claims of dino DNA that had longed been found to have been in error.

But she has nothing to be embarrassed about. lol

[Elsie]

That's a Christian holiday...

And we are told to celebrate it in Acts 29:14

[bobdsmith]

"on the contrary" implies they are monkey skulls. But they are not. Clearly not. Neither are they cat skulls, or dog skulls. I don't need any qualifications or close examination to see that.

[jennyp]

We know that A) is a modern chimpanzee and N) is a modern human.

So you are trying to say that modern humans desended from modern chimpanzees??

No, but the consensus is that the common ancestor chimpanzee was very similar to the modern chimpanzee. I'm assuming it's close enough for the survey's purposes.

Everyone agrees that M) was a modern human as well.

Well then - since EVERYONE agrees; who am I not to?

Hey, if you think that M) was either just an ape or a human-like transitional, speak up now and I'll break it out into its own column & add your reasoned judgement to the responses. (But please try to fill in as many of the other columns as you can too.)

[Elsie]

...add your reasoned judgement to the responses.

But I have no 'reasons'. Only a picture in a group of pictures to look at.

I'd be taking someone elses opinion of what these things are, and that's heresay.

[Quark2005]

And we are told to celebrate it in Acts 29:14

Is that in the Rick James version of the Bible?

[js1138]

That didn't work very well.

[ahayes]

That didn't work very well.

Well, it gave me a laugh. ;-)

[Boxen]

Hotlinking = bad

[ml1954]

What does my bust have to do with this thread????

That's the best rebuttal you have times two?