Posted on 03/07/2005 3:19:42 PM PST by 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.
Envy is an ugly thing.
Neither do evolutionary biologists.
Only the anti-science creationists claim they do, as a cheap and dishonest "straw man" attack.
And...here's something to jump on; I get younger earther all the time
Flatter-earther too, I suspect.
Oh, the irony...
Complexity!
Complexity is a result of the evolutionary process, not the process itself.
It means he's still lying and slandering Daniel Dennett, despite having his lies exposed and documented.
He not only has no shame, he has no honor whatsoever.
Translation: We don't like it when we catch you lying and slandering people with your lies, and then continuing and repeating your lies even after we've documented their falsity. We don't like you lying about the nature of our beef with you, either, as you've done right here and elsewhere in this thread.
Truly, have you no shame?
Where do you fantasize that I ever called anyone a fool for "not agreeing with this"? I was quite specific about what made certain people fools in my opinion, and it had nothing to do with whether they "agreed" with something or not.
If one is trying to argue from a scientifically objective point of view, you don't stoop to ad hominem attacks.
If I was discussing a matter of objective science in that particular post, you'd be right. But I wasn't. I was discussing the foolish behavior of certain people, and how they damage the credibility of the conservatism they profess to value.
They betray one's own biases and uncertainty as to ones own position!
Nonsense. If I was uncertain about a particular position, I would hardly be faulting someone so strongly for holding a differing opinion on it. It's only when the validity of a position approaches that of being beyond doubt that it becomes appropriate to express incredulity at the competence or motives of someone who continues to deny it. Your reasoning leaves something to be desired.
Nonsense. There is no "explanation" in "Intelligent Design". Saying that "god did it" (or "aliens did it", or "an unidentified designer did it") actually explains absolutely nothing. Real explanations involve specific processes and specifically describe what, how, when, etc.
that Darwinian evolution has not and cannot prove.
Darwinian evolution "cannot prove" complexity? Huh? How does one "prove complexity", and why would one want to in the first place? Attempt to be coherent.
This is why we have something to discuss, after all. If there wasn't legitimate problems with TOE none of us would be wasting our time on these threads.
You've overlooked the obvious and most supportable alternative explanation: We're wasting time on these threads because the religously-based anti-evolution industry keeps cranking out lies and misrepresentations about evolution in a dishonest attempt to instill doubt about it, and those of us who actually understand biology and recognize the lies aren't going to just sit idly by and allow floods of falsehoods to go unanswered.
"It will revolutionise the way we see human evolution".
Yuh think? I been here for nigh on fity year. I ain't seen us evolve all dat much.
*Scratches Head, then Buttocks.*
The "basis for ID" is the "god of the gaps" argument which has failed innumerable times in the past. I doubt it will be any more successful this time in the long run.
Intelligent Design is about explaining the complexity of life's information and structures
Again, the "design hypothesis" actually "explains" nothing. It just passes the buck without making any specific explanations.
that Darwinian evolution has not and cannot scientifically prove.
Again, this wording makes no sense.
The scientific assumptions logically line up with ID not TOE.
You're quite mistaken, but feel free to try to list them for us.
Read up on supervolcanoes to discover how TOE fails in relation to our reality.
Okay, I'll bite -- what in the *heck* do supervolanoes have to do with biological evolution in any way, and how are they a "problem' for evolution?
Somethin' tells me
It's all happening at the zoo.
The monkeys stand for honesty,
Giraffes are insincere,
And the elephants are kindly but
They're dumb.
Orangutans are skeptical
Of changes in their cages,
And the zookeeper is very fond of rum.
Zebras are reactionaries,
Antelopes are missionaries,
Pigeons plot in secrecy,
And hamsters turn on frequently.
What a gas! You gotta come and see
At the zoo.
Try wiping a majority of the "advances" in complexity clean every 50,000 years. Quite a hurdle to leap when a theory relies so heavily on the element of time. Then throw in the passing life ending magnitude comet like Shumaker Levy, which we saw during our lifetimes hit a planet in our solar system.
It is not looking good when we stretch this thing out to the time for your fledgling deaf, dumb and blind theory to do it's work. Pinball wizard indeed; bouncing life out of existence conservatively every couple 100,000 years (don't give me the, "all comets hit Jupiter" line, either).
Give me an example where genetic variation specific to need occurs as a result of environmental pressure.
Are you on drugs? What is the evidence for anything like that?
Do not despair. The creationists we're left with in these threads are the most irrational and dishonest of the bunch. Their movement has truly reached its nadir. As I review their posts, I find great cause for optimism. Only the genuine dregs remain to defend their peculiar form of lunacy. Evolution is not only triumphant in the world of science, but even here, where anyone can post anything, creationism is obviously crushed. With defenders such as these, can a climax like Jonestown be very distant in creationism's future?
Dress it up all you want ..you were name calling...by the way did you see my post at 208?
lol.
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.