Oldest biped skeleton discovered - new evolution record, 1.2 millions added in one day

http://cooltech.iafrica.com/science/421933.htm ^ | Mon, 07 Mar 2005

[Truth666]

A joint Ethiopian-US team of palaeontologists announced on Saturday they had discovered the world's oldest biped skeleton to be unearthed so far, dating it to between 3.8 and four million years old.

"This is the world's oldest biped," Bruce Latimer, director of the natural history museum in Cleveland, Ohio, told a news conference in the Ethiopian capital, adding that "it will revolutionise the way we see human evolution".

The bones were found three weeks ago in Ethiopia's Afar region, at a site some 60 kilometres from Hadar where Lucy, one of the first hominids, was discovered in 1974. Researchers at the site in northeast Ethiopia have in all unearthed 12 hominid fossils, of which parts of one skeleton were discovered.

[AntiGuv]

Umm.. The male chest looks strange without nipples only because male chests have nipples. If male chests didn't have nipples, then they would look strange with nipples..

Your third answer is a tautology. If you need the question rephrased, here it is: Why are male nipples a design feature inherent in the way humans develop where the same tissues can develop into either sex based on hormones?

So, I take it your answer is: Men have nipples so that women can kiss them.

Interesting!

[shubi]

It seems to me, creationists' kids would be incapable of any reasoning whatsoever. Although your example is not an example of circular reasoning, but of analysis and conclusion, circular reasoning would be preferable to none.

[shubi]

I am tempted to tell Danny what he can kiss.

[js1138]

You need to make a better case for your position than just calling names and labeling labels.

If you don't want to look like a fool, then you had better address this charge to someone else. the person you are addressing (Ichneumon) has done more case building than anyone else on either side.

[metacognative]

Well, I'm not surprised you don't answer my query.
Are you sure all DNA codes are the same. ..and did that code 'create' itself?

[Junior]

2) They are ornamental. Although as with all art, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. And evolutionists routinely deny that anything is ornamental.

You are such a brazen liar. Ever hear of "sexual selection?" Of course you have, but you oh-so-conveniently forget it to make a dishonest point. Everything from peacock tails to elk antler to blonde hair is "ornamental" but also serves to attract mates.

As for external ornamentation, one need look no further than crows and certain crustaceans as examples of critters collecting do-dads or ornamenting themselves to attract mates.

I suppose you've never heard or used the pick-up line, "want to come up and see my etchings?" Same deal.

[js1138]

It would also cut into their Mercedes budget.

The real reason creation science isn't being done is that science always winds up supporting naturalistic explanations. Flood geology is a good example. The creationists tried it and got burned.

[shubi]

To have such liars calling themselves Christians is the disgrace.

[AntiGuv]

Pardon the intrusion, but:

1) With regard to your question, it's irrelevant whether all DNA codes are the same (i.e., follow the same set of rules). It only matters whether human and lobster genetic codes are the same. They are. If you'd rather insert a different creature, feel free to go right ahead.

2) Whether or not the code 'created' itself has no bearing on whether it's a common feature. If, by example, an intelligent designer 'created' the code, then all evidence supports that both lobsters and humans descended from the code that the intelligent designer created.

Evolution does not preclude such fantasies.

[Long Cut]

Considering the evidence for your dishonesty that Ichneumon posted, you've got a LOT of brass using that tag line.

I guess when one is already a proven liar, being a hypocrite to boot is no big deal.

"They don't want to consider evidence or facts. They get cheap thrills from denigrating anyone who disagrees with their hollow religion."

Pot, meet kettle.

[DannyTN]

"And evolutionists routinely deny that anything is ornamental. - DannyTN "You are such a brazen liar. Ever hear of "sexual selection?" - Junior

OK perhaps I over generalized. The reason I made that comment was due to the web search I made on male nipples to see if I overlooked anything. Most of the evolutionist explanations that explained that male nipples were becaused we evolved from lower animals that had them, started off with the statement that "They are not ornamental". (Search WebMD.com for male nipples).

How they can make such a blanket statement is beyond me.

Nevertheless, I stand corrected, and apparently evolutionists only reject male nipples as ornamental. Ornamental items can indeed be seen in much evolutionist work.

Although I am curious why evolutionists think ornamentation evolved as an aspect of sexual selection. It seems like brute strength and stamina would be preferred.

In other words.. If we were evolutionary products,
wouldn't we deem this...

attractive over this?....

[PatrickHenry]

It's irrelevant whether the creationist questioner selects humans and lobsters, or pinaples and 'possums. All such questions may produce snickers from an ignorant audience (such as those who admire Johnson), but the scientific response to all these rhetorical questions is the same. All species on earth fit into the Tree of Life, which indicates that all species are related by common descent. The "tree" is the result of a century and a half of research. All the data fits, as predicted.

When two apparently closely-related species are compared, their genetic codes are remarkably similar, as their shapes and chronological sequences suggested before the discovery of DNA. DNA is the killer argument against all claims that the tree of life is arbitrarily assembled to make a backwards fit to the theory of evolution.

The farther appart two species are on the evolutionary tree, the more their codes diverge, but if we trace backward in time, they do converge on common ancestry. There is no evidence to contradict this. All the evolution-deniers have going for them are dumb creationist questions.

[DannyTN]

Post 231 is where you get to quote Jim Croce's Rolly Derby Queen lyrics. LOL

Roller Derby Queen - Jim Croce

Gonna tell you a story that you won't believe
But I fell in love last Friday evenin'
With a girl I saw on a bar room T.V. screen

Well I was just gettin' ready to get my hat
When she caught my eye and I put it back
And I ordered myself a couple o' more shots and beers

Chorus:

The night (you know) that I fell in love with a Roller Derby Queen
(Round and round, oh round and round)
The meanest hunk o' woman
That anybody ever seen
Down in the arena

She were five foot six and two fifteen
A bleached-blonde mama
With a streak of mean
She knew how to knuckle
And she knew how to scuffle and fight

And the roller derby program said
That she were built like a 'fridgerator with a head
Her fans call her "Tuffy"
But all her buddies called her "Spike"

(Repeat Chorus)

Bridge:

Round and round, go round and round (3 times)

Well I could not help it
But to fall in love
With this heavy-duty woman
I been speakin' of
Things looked kind of bad
Until the day she skated into my life

Well she might be nasty
She might be fat
But I never met a person
Who would tell her that
She's my big blonde bomber
My heavy handed Hackensack mama

(Repeat Chorus)

(Repeat Bridge)

[metacognative]

I agree that the purported evidence was no evidence.
Par for the course with these darwinite fundamentalists

[metacognative]

If you believe the parasitical insect has produced evidence of my dishonesty in any way, no wonder you are a gullible darwin believer...

[js1138]

It seems ...

Speculation is free, and even scientists speculate. But hypotheses have to be tested against reality. In this case, what seems reasonable to you doesn't conform to reality. Doesn't in birds of paradise, either.

Generally it's more productive to start your speculation with what is, and work backwards to how it got that way.

[metacognative]

Your 'tree' is wholly supported by dotted lines and has no trunk. Looks more like assorted shrubs. Sorry to interfere with your fact free worldview.

[Long Cut]

LOL! The posts are there for all to see.

But continue on in your fantasyland. Intelligent lurkers will get a laugh or two watching you rant. I know I do.

[SunkenCiv]

"I just explained in detail how these frauds are now staged in a daily basis" -- Truth666

Huge asteroid to fly past Earth (Toutatis hoax - how and why)
space.com | 04/09/29
Posted on 09/29/2004 5:00:09 AM PDT by Truth666
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1230167/posts

[DannyTN]

Both the Tree and DNA studies are equally applicable to Common Design as to Common Descent.

Is anyone surprised that DNA reveals the design of Chimpanzees is closer to man than Ratfish? NO. Not evolutionists, not creationist, not anybody with two eyes who have ever seen both.

But it doesn't answer the question of how ratfish, chimps and man got here. All evolutionists have is an assumption.

Evolutionionists have made numerous predictions that have not been true and new observations are routinely incorporated as "predictions" after the fact. Vestigial organs and junk DNA are just some of the bad predictions.

Evolutionists have played several games to arrive at their current theory. You throw out enough predictions and eventually something matches the data. You observe from the fossil record what you think is a pattern of progression and then you incorporate that as a prediction. If it doesn't match your predictions you coin fancy terms and adjust your positions such as "punctuated equilibrium" and "convergent evolution". And then those things become "predictions" as though you had thought of them all along.