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.

[true_blue_texican]

HOw is possible to look like James Carville and NOT be mean?

[PatrickHenry]

We just ended up in chat. What's going on?

[concerned about politics]

And they are not monkey skulls. A brief search on google images for "monkey skull" and "Australopithecus skull" makes that very clear.

On the contrary. Look at the back bone and the skull of an ape. Then look at how a human back bone attaches to the skull. According to evolutionists, in one big evolutionary jump, our entire spinal system changed over night. There are no fossils showing the back bone reconnecting itself and turning the ape into a man. We have fossils of apes, and then there's man. Poof!
We have a skull that attaches to our back bone more like of a bear, not an ape. The ape man and humans are separate species - like cats are not dogs.
If evolutionists suggested we came from bears instead of apes, they'd at least sound a little more reasonable and less insane.

[Alter Kaker]

They still can't find that elusive human DNA link, can they? All they can find are animal bones. The poor souls just keep right on trying anyway. I suppose everyone needs a hobby.

I have no idea what you're talking about. What exactly are you saying is missing?

[ConsentofGoverned]

"Are you expecting us to find DNA millions of years old? If so, may I submit you have no clue what you're talking about?"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>...............
finally an evolutionist who gets it..there is NO DNA evidence just gross anatomy of partial fossilized skeletons and from that paltry data why the further back we go 100 200 400 million yrs the more they seem to know about the animals and plants they have stone bits of ...new genus this and new phylum that and new link here and there and why we even know life began 4.5 billion yrs ago give or take a billion..but ask how all this DNA and nucleic acids and proteins and precursors came about and they yell foul we only study other stuff don't cha know.

[VadeRetro]

We just ended up in chat. What's going on?

Science isn't important.

[Right Wing Professor]

Uh oh. One new fossil, two new gaps. The theory of evolution is getting weaker all the time....

[Coyoteman]

On the contrary. Look at the back bone and the skull of an ape. Then look at how a human back bone attaches to the skull. According to evolutionists, in one big evolutionary jump, our entire spinal system changed over night. There are no fossils showing the back bone reconnecting itself and turning the ape into a man. We have fossils of apes, and then there's man. Poof! We have a skull that attaches to our back bone more like of a bear, not an ape. The ape man and humans are separate species - like cats are not dogs. If evolutionists suggested we came from bears instead of apes, they'd at least sound a little more reasonable and less insane.

Thanks for the anatomy lesson.

I could have saved six years of grad school studying these subjects--I didn't know all you had to do was stay at a Holiday Inn Express.

[doc30]

and the report says they found absolutely no human DNA at all. They're all apes.

Creationist spin. They found neither human nor animal DNA because fossils are not sources of DNA. After a million years, the DNA would have long ago decomposed. They simply mislead the public by saying no human DNA was found, then imply that that is an indicator these were animals unrelated to humans. Sometimes it's fun for sceintists to look at creationists arguements just so they can see how long it takes to find the fallacies.

[doc30]

sceintists

And for scientists, too.

[<1/1,000,000th%]

Two more gaps.

[ahayes]

Sources?

There have been reports of fragments of DNA millions of years old being isolated from fossils in amber, but these are irreproducible and some incidents have been determined to be due to contamination. Currently the oldest DNA that has been isolated is only 100,000 years old.

At any rate we would not expect "human DNA" in our ancestors. If any human DNA were to be found, that would be a definite indicator of contamination.

[ahayes]

Yeah, funny, you'd think if it all got buried just 4,000 years ago in a humongous flood we'd have better data. How come we can get DNA out of mummies a couple thousand years old and then suddenly we can't get anything out of ape fossils only a bit older than that? So confusing!

[mlc9852]

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

[mlc9852]

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

[furball4paws]

LOL!

[wallcrawlr]

More ape DNA discovered...I guess thats news somewhere.

^{Revelation 4:11}Intelligent Design
Constantly searching for objectivity in the evolution debate...
See my profile for info

[CarolinaGuitarman]

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

They did? When?

[jennyp]

I can't help noticing that none of you creationist scholars here have responded to my survey to try to determine just where this obvious dichotomy between "ancient ape" and "ancient human" lies.

So once again...

with fading hope...

I post the survey so you can straighten out us deluded evos:

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). [CLICK HERE] for larger photo.
(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. Everyone agrees that M) was a modern human as well. 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	[_]	[_]	[_]	[_]	[_]

The Responses So Far:

Person	A Pan troglodytes (modern chimp)	B, C Australopithecus africanus	D Homo habilis	E Homo habilis	F Homo rudolfensis	G Homo erectus	H Homo ergaster	I Homo heidelbergensis	J, K Homo sapiens neanderthalensis	L, M Homo sapiens sapiens (Cro-Magnon, modern human)
Mainstream scientists	ape	ape-like trans	ape-like, human-like trans	ape-like, human-like trans	ape-like, human-like trans	human-like trans	human-like trans	human-like trans	human-like trans, human	human
Bowden, Malcolm	ape		human		human		human			human
editor-surveyor	ape	ape	ape	ape	ape	ape	ape	ape	human	human
Gish, Duane (1979)	ape		human		human		human			human
Gish, Duane (1985)	ape		ape		human		human			human
Mehlert, A. W.	ape		ape		human		human			human
Menton, David	ape		human		human		human			human
Michael_Michaelangelo	ape	ape	ape	ape	ape	ape	ape	ape	human	human
MississippiMan	ape							ape		human
Taylor, Paul	ape		human		human		human			human

[jennyp]

Post 39 is for you, too.