Fossil Find Is Missing Link in Human Evolution, Scientists Say

National Geographic News ^ | April 13, 2006 | John Roach

[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.

[Conservative Texan Mom]

I miss read one of your post earlier.

(Yes...And that would not be inconsistant with the Genesis account...And would also solve a lot of evolution/creation problems)

I didn't see the word not, and thought you said it would be inconsistent

It is a possibility. I personally don't view it that way, as it does not mention life. But, it is a possibility.

[Alter Kaker]

Evolutionists have sure made plenty of them.

Try not to blow the roof off with your powerful, well-reasoned points.

[Ichneumon]

[And maybe you're unaware of the just how stupid someone would have to be to make such an elementary mistake.]

Evolutionists have sure made plenty of them.

No more than a handful in over 150 years, and they are soon caught and corrected by other "evolutionists".

Anti-evolution creationists, on the other hand, make thousands of mistakes on a regular basis, and they never seem to correct themselves or each other. In fact, they keep repeating each other's mistakes ad infinitum.

Anti-evolutionists make so many "errors", of such a gross and obvious nature, that one has to ask whether they do it out of dishonesty, or mere incompetence, because making so many "errors" that many entire websites (maintained by scientists, not by other anti-evolution creationists) are dedicated towards tracking all of the anti-evolutionists' errors.

For example, here are *hundreds* of example of just *one* kind of creationist "error":

The Quote Mine Project: Or, Lies, Damned Lies and Quote Mines

The Revised Quote Book: Looking at how Creationists Quote Evolutionists

Quotations and Misquotations: Why What Antievolutionists Quote is Not Valid Evidence Against Evolution

Creationist Arguments: Misquotes

Creationist Whoppers

Quote-Mining...The Tradition Continues - ICR Representative Frank Sherwin Visits Eureka College

Misquotations in the Creation Book

Creationist "Out of Context" Quotes

Famous Quotes found in books (and misused by creationists)

Lie Ho! Lie Ho! It's off to the quote mine we go…

Want more? Here is an excellent example of repeated distortions of the actual science by an AECreationist book filling children's heads with gross mispresresentations: Skeletons in Your Closet.

And: A Creationist Exposed.

And: ICR Whoppers. From the Talk.Origins Archive

And: Lying For Jesus: Duane Gish, InterVarsity, and Creationism at Rutgers

And: Some Verifiable Instances of Creationist Dishonesty

And: Creationism: Bad Science or Immoral Pseudoscience?

And: Lucy's Knee Joint: A Case Study in Creationists' Willingness to Admit their Errors

And: Missing Supernova Remnants as Evidence of a Young Universe? A Case of Fabrication

And: Icons of Evolution FAQs (creationist Wells spends a whole book distorting science)

And: Hiding the Numbers to Defame Radiometric Dating A Few Examples of the Many Misused References in Woodmorappe (1999)

And: Creationist Lies and Blunders

...how many more would you like? Want more? Okay:

Summary of the ability of the two creationists (Hovind and Havoc) to present information they *know* is false, and to *fail* to retract when reminded of their falsehoods, is presented here, along with links to all appropriate documentation.

This sort of behavior, unfortunately, is *typical* of creationists. Here, want dozens of more examples of their distortions? A few more for the road? Another? Still more, perhaps? How about even more? Ooh, here are some good examples. And there's lots more where that came from, like this and this and this and lots more here and *tons* here and countless more here and yet more here, a goodie... Wait, there's more over here, etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., *ETC.*, etc., etc., etc., . How about 300 more creationist misrepresentations? Not enough, you say? Well then visit this link.

Still not enough? Okay, fine: Several hundred more anti-evolution creationist "mistakes"...

I can keep this up all day long. AECreationists have grossly mispresented science and made "errors" thousands upon thousands of times, yet never seem to "notice" or correct each other. Instead, they just repeat each other's falsehoods, even *after* the "error" has been publicly exposed. Are they liars or just stone stupid? You make the call. But either way, I'm not going to let them set school science standards, they have revealed themselves to be grossly unsuited for the job.

[Ichneumon]

Evolution is based on a lie,

Wrong.

and as the lies become exposed,

Wrong again. No "lies" affecting the validity of evolutionary biology have been "exposed". A *ton* of anti-evolution lies and screwups have been documented, though (see my previous post for documentation), but the AECreationists don't seem to mind at all, probably because they're not all that concerned about little incidentals like "truth" and "facts".

more and bigger lies are requires to cover over or hide the earlier lies.

Strike three, you're out, and so is your credibilty.

Come back when you have some actual material you can document instead of your standard rambling rants which bear little if any resemblance to reality.

Or heck, if you're going to rant, at least *try* to give specific examples for your allegations, so that we can all have a good laugh and document how clueless/dishonest you're being. When all you do is make vague and general slanders, they're so pointless that it's not even fun to kick them around. It's like a liberal moonbat screaming, "capitalism is evil!" Um, okay, fine, now go take your medications. At least if if they tried to say what they thought they were *basing* their claim on, you could make their head explode by demonstrating that their claimed "facts" were horse manure. But with something as vague as "capitalism is evil!" or "evolution is based on a lie!", all you can do is shake your head and make sure they're not allowed near any pointy objects.

[thomaswest]

Quoting 325 posted by RunningWolf: the theories of flight aerodynamics had some big errors and misconceptions there, and somehow man designed and built those airplanes on flawed theory, just as he has with other flawed theory in the past. In the case of heavier than air aircraft, you start with the theory but do not adhere to the theory 100% for that’s where testing and modification come in. This in fact is a good place to start into looking at other theories. I will talk about that later

I merely quote gobbledygook from runningwolf.

Are you saying that you agree with The Pixie Theory of Flight? You seem to agree that mere humans do not have the capability to understand. You seem to think that if knowledge of flight was to be given by God, then this was given in Biblical times.

I am curious. Why did your god withhold knowlege of the Germ theory of Disease for so long? Why did your god withhold knowlege of flight for so long?

There is a nice other view. One view of the IDist says to worship a god of ignorance. I favor no particular god. I don't know, and whether you or I have an afterlife is very doubtful. I don't plan on it and I think others who plan on it are fooling themselves.

I happen to enjoy my loves with my family and friends. Runningwolf posts that because I think that evolution is a valid understanding of human origins, that therefore we "evos are of the antichrist, have no morals, care only about sex, have no responsibility to our kids, promote marxism, communism, vaticanism".

I am doubtul about any claims to "The one true faith". There are so many claims. There is so little evidence.

[Ichneumon]

Check out artist's renditions of this "link." It's an ape, people.

Yeah, so? What did you think you were "disproving" by pointing this out? Our ancestors *were* apes.

The only things that apes produce are other apes.

There's a flaw in your "logic": You Are An Ape.

Then when you're done reading that, read this post I wrote in response to someone else's similar claim.

Then check out this post of mine covering just a tiny sliver of the vast mountains of evidence for ape/human common ancestry.

I regret to inform you that biology is not nearly as simplistic and restricted as your conception of it.

[BykrBayb]

That's all? They think they can reconstruct the entire animal for that, and declare that this is the missing link?

Maybe that's the entire animal. Eventually we evolved into ...

[Ichneumon]

The view that pixies make airplanes fly or pixies push electrons around etc.

You know?

We? Do?

what is with you people?

"What is with us people" is that we point out that many of the anti-evolution creationist arguments sound (rightly) bizarre and silly when applied to just about anything other than biology.

Who says that but ‘your side’

No one, but it has a distinct resemblance to various arguments and claims put forth by many anti-evolutionists. Your response (if I may attempt to sum it up in a nutshell, "that's ridiculous!"), indicates that you are at least capable of recognizing the poor quality of these arguments when applied to scientific fields or to supernatural causes which are different than the ones you're used to seeing them applied to. Now it remains to be seen whether you can reach an appropriate conclusion about their validity when applied to, say, biology and certain other supernatural beings.

I mean this whole post here by you kind of encapsulates a big part of what goes down on these thread from the 'evo side'.

Actually, the point is that it "kind of encapsulates a big part of what goes down on these threads from" the *ANTI*evo side.

I think you can do better thomaswest.

I think he did rather well, actually.

BTW, the theories of flight aerodynamics had some big errors and misconceptions there, and somehow man designed and built those airplanes on flawed theory, just as he has with other flawed theory in the past. In the case of heavier than air aircraft, you start with the theory but do not adhere to the theory 100% for that’s where testing and modification come in.

Oh, good, does this understanding mean that you won't in the future make any snide remarks about any particular detail that evolutionary biology may have corrected itself on in the past, or may do after today?

[Ichneumon]

Eventually we evolved into ...

I think you may be onto something -- I saw that girl once in a single's bar.

[BykrBayb]

Did she look like this before the hang over?

[thomaswest]

Quoting 325 posted by RunningWolf: the theories of flight aerodynamics had some big errors and misconceptions there, and somehow man designed and built those airplanes on flawed theory, just as he has with other flawed theory in the past. In the case of heavier than air aircraft, you start with the theory but do not adhere to the theory 100% for that’s where testing and modification come in. This in fact is a good place to start into looking at other theories. I will talk about that later

Are you saying that you agree with The Pixie Theory of Flight? You seem to agree that mere humans do not have the capability to understand. You seem to think that if knowledge of flight was to be given by God, then this was given in Biblical times.

I am curious. Why did your god withhold knowlege of the Germ theory of Disease for so long? Why did your god withhold knowlege of flight for so long?

There is a nice other view. One view of the IDist says to worship a god of ignorance. I favor no particular god. but I think we I don't know, and whether you or I have an afterlife is very doubftul. I don't plan on it and I think others who plan on it are fooling themselves.

I happen to enjoy my loves with my family and friends. Runningwolf posts that because I think that evolution is a valid understanding of human origins, that therefore we "evos are of the antichrist, have no morals, care only about sex, have no responsibility to our kids, promote marxism, communism, vaticanism.

I am doubtul about any claims to "The one true faith". There are so many claims. There is so little evidence.

-------------- The Theory of Demon possesion to "explain" sickness has been around for more centuries than Christian belief, longer than Jewish belief, longer than Islamic, Hindu or Buddhist belief.

DNA was not known in any ancient text. Modern knowlege makes all ancient belief systems irrelevant and out-of-date.

[Ichneumon]

Did she look like this before the hang over?

Something like that, but the little red "X" in a box looked more like an orange "Y" in an egg crate.

[BykrBayb]

The dreaded "X"? It's supposed to be Miss America. Go here. http://ex-donkey.mu.nu/archives/Miss%20America%202006.jpg

[thomaswest]

Quoting: from post 348: I think you can do better [than] thomaswest.

I think he did rather well, actually.

I consider this high praise from Ichneumon. I am a mere physicist, with interests in separation of church&state matters. 'Rather well' gives me a B; I aspire to an A.

[John 6.66=Mark of the Beast?]

If you are still and Ape can you impregnate one or can one impregnate you?

I do believe that using the argument like dogs the different breeds came about from the mixing of different breeds any dog can impregnate another dog.

So can you or can you be impregnated by an Ape?

If not then the link on your post is false.

So using the example of dogs and apes does not hold water it is a false argument.

[Ichneumon]

Posted by John 6.66=Mark of the Beast? to Ichneumon On News/Activism 04/14/2006 4:36:57 AM CDT · 355 of 355 If you are still and Ape can you impregnate one or can one impregnate you? I do believe that using the argument like dogs the different breeds came about from the mixing of different breeds any dog can impregnate another dog. So can you or can you be impregnated by an Ape? If not then the link on your post is false. So using the example of dogs and apes does not hold water it is a false argument.

Your argument is based on a false presumption: That "ape" is a species designation. It is not.

It is a name for a larger grouping of diverse animals, like the name "bird". Just as not all birds can interbreed, not all apes can interbreed. And yet, this doesn't mean that a penguin is not a bird just because it can't impregnate a swan, nor does this mean that humans aren't apes just because they can't impregnate orangutans.

[John 6.66=Mark of the Beast?]

Your link made that association. They explained the evolution of man as the interbreeding of dogs. Not knowing the difference and thank you for point it out to me I was under the assumption that it was a true statement.

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

Except to the willfully ignorant (see my tagline) any "debate" over the common ancestry of man and the other apes has long been over,...

Wrong. You have absolutely no idea (or proof) that any species is exclusively originated from this planet.

You are saying the earth is the center of the universe...

Now, go ahead with all of the gratuitous insults for creationists - - before your poor memory recalls that I am an atheist...

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

And still the creationist troglodytes insist that not one single "transitional" fossil has been located. Earth to creationists: you're crazy.

You have absolutely no idea (or proof) that any species is exclusively originated from this planet.

You are saying the earth is the center of the universe...

Atheist to evolutinists: you're worse.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"OK...So which one is the oldest???"

Not sure about the oldest, but ever hear of Herodotus or Plutarch? They predate the NT by centuries.

"You may notice that God did not say he created the earth on the first day...He created 'light' on the fisrt day of the Genesis creation...The earth was already there...And He didn't say how long it's been there..."

About 4.5 billion years. :)