Posted on 04/13/2006 12:18:35 PM PDT by Senator Bedfellow
When the famous skeleton of an early human ancestor known as Lucy was discovered in Africa in the 1970s, scientists asked: Where did she come from?
Now, fossils found in the same region are providing solid answers, researchers have announced.
Lucy is a 3.5-foot-tall (1.1-meter-tall) adult skeleton that belongs to an early human ancestor, or hominid, known as Australopithecus afarensis.
The species lived between 3 million and 3.6 million years ago and is widely considered an ancestor of modern humans.
The new fossils are from the most primitive species of Australopithecus, known as Australopithecus anamensis. The remains date to about 4.1 million years ago, according to Tim White, a biologist at the University of California, Berkeley.
White co-directed the team that discovered the new fossils in Ethiopia (map) in a region of the Afar desert known as the Middle Awash.
The team says the newly discovered fossils are a no-longer-missing link between early and later forms of Australopithecus and to a more primitive hominid known as Ardipithecus.
"What the new discovery does is very nicely fill this gap between the earliest of the Lucy species at 3.6 million years and the older [human ancestor] Ardipithecus ramidus, which is dated at 4.4 million years," White said.
The new fossil find consists mainly of jawbone fragments, upper and lower teeth, and a thigh bone.
The fossils are described in today's issue of the journal Nature.
Found Links
According to White, the discovery supports the hypothesis that Lucy was a direct descendent of Australopithecus anamensis.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.nationalgeographic.com ...
Well yes to both, but what teeth really allow us to do is establish relationships, by looking at changes in tooth patterns (e.g. number of molars v. incisors), tooth shape and amount of enamel. Closely related species obviously share more traits than less closely related species.
Teeth can also tell us what faces looked like, which in turn can tell us about brain size and of course tell us about diet. Studying teeth all day is also really boring, and one of the reasons I decided in the end not to become an anthropologist.
This is a VERY flawed argument. You could "prove" that Caesar's Rome never existed! You were not there to observe it; no person alive today observed it; no one can reproduce ancient Rome in a laboratory or anywhere else. "Fossil foundations" mean nothing--the Theory of a City called Rome in Caesar's time is "just a theory", "and always will be"... "and lacks good evidence". Ipso facto, Rome never existed!
I love creationist arguments. Let's imagine all the things we can deny the existence of because "you were not there to observe it" and "you cannot reproduce it." Hmm, ancient Israel, The Theory of Jesus, the Civil War.... so many things not observed, so many things unreproducible.
It seems to me that this a statement that says "my mind is closed forever on this". "Always will be..." a very strange way to 'think' that new evidence might appear or that you might be open to a new idea.
The statement would indicate he doesn't know what a scientific theory is. Its a hoax, no one could miss that much in science and still pass.
This is an excellent site on philosophy.
http://www.importanceofphilosophy.com/FiveBranchesMain.html
Philosophy can be based on fact, as a starting premise from which to reason.
Who needs science when bald conjecture will snow the peasants just as easily and effectively?
I have observed no other however your evidence is insufficient.
Who needs science when bald conjecture will snow the peasants just as easily and effectively?
You're right. That's been done very effectively and well without science for thousands of years.
They have videos and were arguing over which to watch. Except for my youngest, who doesn't like Dragon Ball Z and wanted to watch Barbie as Rapunzel. They were being ugly to each other, so I told them they couldn't watch anything. Now they're outside hiding Easter eggs from each other. Much more pleasant!
Regarding your post #122 about not feeling the need to restrict God with our limited knowledge....I agree...those who chose to limit God to a six day creation phase, or limit the age of the earth to a mere 6-12 thousand years, do seek to limit God...we can never possibly understand how God created what He did, nor the time frame He used...if we try to set the standard for God, using our limited knowledge, we seek to put Him into a little box of our own making, and constrain Him there...and that is something I am unwilling to do...
For those of us who believe in the God of the Bible, and also support evolution, we see God as the Creator, but we cannot know how or in what time frame, he carried out his creation...
But we can look at the physical evidence on the earth, and I expect that God hopes we use our intelligence to figure out what it all means...
Hope you don't think that is my quote.
Certainly not! You seem sane. I quoted ejroth.
Yes, I have to say that your post seem to reflect a maturity that others seem to lack.
Look a litle further, I think you are speaking of a preceived fact, not a explained fact.
That is very helpful. Thanks for educating me on that point.
Stratigraphy is where it's found in rock layers, right?
This is a VERY flawed argument. You could "prove" that Caesar's Rome never existed! You were not there to observe it; no person alive today observed it; no one can reproduce ancient Rome in a laboratory or anywhere else. "Fossil foundations" mean nothing--the Theory of a City called Rome in Caesar's time is just a theory, "and always will be"... "and lacks good evidence". Ipso facto, Rome never existed!
I love creationist arguments. Let's imagine all the things we can deny the existence of because "you were not there to observe it" and "you cannot reproduce it." Hmm, ancient Israel, The Theory of Jesus, the Civil War.... so many things not observed, so many things unreproducible. ------------ Ah, I see my error. Apologies to jec41.
If you get a chance, read Job 38. It'll give you chills!
Right.
Knowledge
(Knowledge is the mental grasp of the facts of reality. It is the awareness of the identity of particular aspects of reality. It is not just an awareness of reality, but an understanding of it. It is a successfully formed conclusion about some aspect of reality. An example of knowledge is the identification of the law of gravity. It is a characteristic of reality that is identified and understood.
Knowledge is gained through a successful evaluation of one's perceptions. It is through the use of reason that man draws conclusions about the world. It is through objectivity that man identifies the validity of those conclusions. Knowledge is the clear, lucid information gained through the process of reason applied to reality.)
This was what I was looking at, but I may be taking it out of context.
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.