Posted on 07/17/2007 9:32:39 AM PDT by SunkenCiv
Jawbones from an early human ancestor, found recently in northeast Ethiopia, could shine light on a murky period of human evolution, paleontologists say. The bones were found in the fossil-rich Afar region, just 20 miles (32 kilometers) north of the spot where the famed skeleton of "Lucy" -- early human ancestor who lived 3.2 million years ago -- was unearthed in 1974... The new bones are believed to date from 3.8 million to 3.5 million years ago. Though more research needs to be done, the group says the bones could bridge the gap between two known human ancestor species. Australopithecus anamensis lived some 4.2 million to 3.9 million years ago, and Australopithecus afarensis -- the species to which Lucy belonged -- thrived from 3.6 million to 3 million years ago... Some researchers believe that Lucy and others of her species were descendants of A. anamensis -- and these new Ethiopian jawbones could end that speculation... "We have had isolated teeth and [other skeleton parts] from previous years. What we didn't have was a complete jaw, which we have now," he said... The earlier species, A. anamensis, had large canine teeth and a narrow jaw. When Lucy appeared, compared to A. anamensis, the jaw had widened, the canines had become smaller, and the molars had grown. Such changes suggest that the A. afarensis chewed, not tore, its food.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.nationalgeographic.com ...
;’) Maybe, but probably the wrong hemisphere (and era) for that. ;’)
They were straight, and nearly parallel. Dog-like. (my son’s pit bull has jaws very similar to the picture, with almost the same angle)
Perhaps a Nancy Pelosi link?
Yes!
Science only deals with the hear and now. It can only speculate about the past and only make assumptions of the future.
The article is filled with assumptions.
Or was that a date on the jaw bone I saw.
Dating methods only fulfill evolutionary needs, they are all that is all speculative, assumptive, and indecisive.
If you have a specific problem with my post, please state it.
Otherwise, your post is generic, unsupported anti-science nonsense.
About all I can glean from your post is that you don't like "dating methods." Please examine the links below and let me know what you would like help on.
ReligiousTolerance.org Carbon-14 Dating (C-14): Beliefs of New-Earth CreationistsRadiometric Dating: A Christian Perspective by Dr. Roger C. Wiens.
This site, BiblicalChronologist.org has a series of good articles on radiocarbon dating.
Are tree-ring chronologies reliable? (The Biblical Chronologist, Vol. 5, No. 1)
Tree Ring and C14 DatingHow does the radiocarbon dating method work? (The Biblical Chronologist, Vol. 5, No. 1)
How precise is radiocarbon dating?
Is radiocarbon dating based on assumptions?
Has radiocarbon dating been invalidated by unreasonable results?
Radiocarbon WEB-info Radiocarbon Laboratory, University of Waikato, New Zealand.
Hear and now? or hear and see?
Your dating methods are all speculative.
Deny that you assume the sample to be pure in nature and the product you are interpreting is the product of decay.
Deny that when you find a rock in a certain strata that you expect a date based upon the fossil content of that strata.
Deny that you Coyoteman date every sample with a presupposition of older than 6000 years when it pertains to evolution or age of earth.
When you have learned as much about dating as I have, then you can lecture me.
Check the dating links on my FR homepage for a start.
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.