Early human ancestor didn't have the jaws of a nutcracker

South Africa's Australopithecus sediba, discovered in 2008 at the archaeological site of Malapa in the Cradle of Humankind World Heritage Site, is again helping us to study and understand the origins of humans. Research published in 2012 garnered international attention by suggesting that a possible early human ancestor had lived on a diverse woodland diet including hard foods mixed in with tree bark, fruit, leaves and other plant products.

But new research by an international team of researchers now shows that Australopithecus sediba didn't have the jaw and tooth structure necessary to exist on a steady diet of hard foods.

"Most australopiths had amazing adaptations in their jaws, teeth and faces that allowed them to process foods that were difficult to chew or crack open. Among other things, they were able to efficiently bite down on foods with very high forces," said team leader David Strait, PhD, professor of anthropology in Arts & Sciences at Washington University in St. Louis.

Oh, almost forgot my quote for today.

I’ll just repeat one for Jim’s benefit that I pasted upthread, since it comes from Gould, the scientist that made Jim’s life much simpler by giving him NOMA to feed B.S. to gullible Christians. We’ve gained much territory thanks to it; it’s a great tactic:

Natural selection [is] an immensely powerful idea with radical philosophical implications. . . . The radicalism of natural selection lies in its power to dethrone some of the deepest and most traditional comforts of Western thought, particularly the notion that nature’s benevolence, order, and good design, with humans at a sensible summit of power and excellence, proves the existence of an omnipotent and benevolent creator. . . . To these beliefs Darwinian natural selection presents the most contrary position imaginable. - Stephen Jay Gould

angryoldfatman quoting Gould: "...nature's benevolence, order, and good design, with humans at a sensible summit of power and excellence, proves the existence of an omnipotent and benevolent creator. . .
To these beliefs Darwinian natural selection presents the most contrary position imaginable. -- Stephen Jay Gould"

But it's indisputable that humans are the Earth's apex predators & life form generally.
As to whether such natural order "proves" the existence of anything, or Anyone, supernatural, that's a matter of choice which Gould obviously answered negatively.

Many others see things differently.
So Gould here constructs yet another straw man, which our FRiend "angryoldfatman" gleefully, but unsuccessfully, tries to breath a breath of life into.

Didn't work the first time you used it, won't work the next time.
Is that all you got?

I repeat my advice: get professional help for your obvious emotional instabilities.

You repeat to get advice, I repeat what I told you to do with your advice. Like I need advice from a half-assed Christian, who exemplifies all of the hypocrisy atheists like myself point out and ridicule.

Please continue. Do not repent, turn the other cheek, forgive, or love. Live like I do then die in your sins while I laugh and point, hypocrite.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
But it’s indisputable that humans are the Earth’s apex predators & life form generally.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

So? That proves evolution works and has nothing to do with the existence of a deity. Or fairy, or whatever name you want to call it.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
As to whether such natural order “proves” the existence of anything, or Anyone, supernatural, that’s a matter of choice which Gould obviously answered negatively.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Here’s the rub. Follow along, short bus rider:

Gould plainly says he finds natural selection (more commonly known as evolution) to be contrary to belief in an “omnipotent and benevolent creator”.

ON THE OTHER HAND, Gould was the man WHO INVENTED THE VERY EXCUSE YOU USE TO COUNTER HIM!

NOMA.

Non-overlapping magisteria.

Why would Gould say on one hand that evolution contradicts belief in the Christian God (supposed omnipotent and benevolent creator), while on the other say evolution has nothing to do with belief in the Christian God?

Here’s the simplest answer (Occam’s Razor) - Gould didn’t believe in NOMA, but came up with the idea to deceive gullible Christians (or half-assed Christians like yourself) into discarding just enough god duties to allow evolution room. Like a cuckoo’s egg.

I’ll make the quote today about that very thing - the purpose of NOMA:

You cannot bludgeon kids with truth (or insult their religion, i.e., their parents and friends) and hope they will smile and believe you. Yes, NOMA is wrong, but is a good first tool for gaining trust. You have to bring them over to your side, gain their trust, and then hold their hands and help them step by step. And on that slow journey, which will be painful for many of them, it is OK to use some inaccuracies temporarily if they help you reach the students. - Bora Zivkovic (aka Coturnix of Science Blogs)

angryoldfatman: "Non-overlapping magisteria."

I wondered what that was all about, never saw the term before, though have read some of Gould's work.

Gould introduced at least one other theory which is today seen as "not quite right", namely punctuated equilibria.
What's "not quite right" about it is Gould's claim that species remain unchanged for long periods of time, before undergoing rapid evolution in times of turmoil, so to speak.

We now know that evolutionarily speaking, there is no period of "stasis", that both descent with modifications and natural selection happen in every generation, with the accumulating results that over long periods of time, species which can appear similar in the fossil record are not necessarily closely related enough to interbreed.

In other words, it's not what happens on the outside which creates new species, but rather, what happen within a population's DNA which makes them more, or less, incapable of interbreeding.

NOMA -- Non-overlapping Magisteria, I would put in that same category -- nice try, but not quite right.
What's wrong with it is that the Bible claims, and Judeo-Christianity teaches, that there is not only plenty of "overlap" between natural & Supernatural realms, but also that Supernatural God created, controls, rules over, and on occasion, overrules the natural realm.
So it's not a "live and let live" religion, rather, we believe Supernatural God rules the natural realm, according to His plan and will.

Of course, as an atheist, Gould naturally wished for free reign to explain nature without reference to the Divine.
Understandable, but, not going to happen.

angryoldfatman: "Like I need advice from a half-assed Christian, who exemplifies all of the hypocrisy atheists like myself point out and ridicule."

Your pose is busted, old man.
It's all fake, you're a fraud, you pose this way, pose that way, always posing, always angry, never truthful, never humble.

So, you are not just self-declared "angry", "old" and "fat", you are also sick in the head, FRiend, and you need to get that straightened out.
Learn to be truthful, learn to be humble, learn to use questions instead of accusations, and most important, begin by losing some weight.
You'll feel better, you'll love life and life will love you, so you won't need to pose or babble nonsense on Free Republic threads.

“Non-overlapping magisteria.”
I wondered what that was all about, never saw the term before, though have read some of Gould’s work.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

AAAAAAAAAAAHHAHAHHAHAHAHAAAHAHA!!

Damn son, you are so ignorant and yet puffing your chest out with PRIDE (isn’t that a sin?) in your knowledge.

I know more than you!

If you had that “humble” approach instead of being an a-hole to any and everybody disagrees with you (in other words, be more supposdely Christian), we could have had a pleasant and mutually educational exchange.

Oh well. Prideful ignorance is bliss.

Now, you say Gould (and Niles Eldredge) got evolution wrong by coming up with punctuated equilibrium.

Who (besides a demonstrably ignorant layman like yourself) says? What evidence did they use to refute punctuated equilibrium? Because you realize that both (two!) scientists you implied were wrong had evidentiary bases for the hypothesis, whereas you have nothing.

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.