Ah, the tree of knowledge of good and evil:
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 ...
Look at it as doing family genealogy on a slightly larger scale.
Ah, the tree of knowledge of good and evil:
Origins of the universe and human beings is only important to religionists... Evolutionism is a religion...
Please support your premise.
If you actually believe evolutionism is a religion, are you not then disparaging someone else's religion with your comments?
Not very understanding of you.
A lot of these guys are just cultural Marxists with a singular purpose here on FreeRepublic to bash the religious folks. The only thing that drives them is their hatred for the Judaic roots of Christendom...
There is no such thing as an ecumenical atheist...
There is no such thing as an ecumenical atheist...
If evolutionism is really a religion, as you claim, then its practitioners can't be atheists.
"A lot of these guys are just cultural Marxists with a singular purpose here on FreeRepublic to bash the religious folks."
You just attacked religious folks on this thread. You said that only people who are interested in origins are religionists. You said they are interested out of vanity and conceitedness.
" The only thing that drives them is their hatred for the Judaic roots of Christendom..."
You falsely assume that evolution is an attack on religion, when evolution, like every science, can't say if a God does or doesn't exist. Most people who accept evolution in the USA are Christians.
You are aware ml1954 was talking about the anti-evolutionists (chiefly creationists) bragging about their IQ and that you've been ripping on them, right?
There is no such thing as an ecumenical atheist...
"Most people who accept evolution in the USA are Christians."(me)
"There is no such thing as an ecumenical atheist..."(you)
Your statement has nothing to do with what I posted. If you are going to regurgitate the same phrases over and over, please attempt to make them relevant. :)
I take it then that you oppose, as a general rule: cosmology, the entire field of history and religion? I'm not sure why you think the search for human origins is necessarily in vain. What's wrong with trying to find out where we came from?
Belief in God is, if nothing else, an attempt to link one's self to the eternal. Can I asssume that you're an atheist?
I do not consider you to be relevant...
Nothing + nothing = two elements + time = 92 natural elements + time = all physical laws and a completely structured universe of galaxies, systems, stars, planets, and moons orbiting in perfect balance and order.
Thank you for the information but it seems to be only the babble and useless thought of a immature person with less ability than a four year old or a opinionest incapable of knowledge. I hope it is not a opinion thought by yourself. The author seems not to know the definition of scientific theory or evolution. Also he seems to think there are several evolution theories when only one has been observed (ongoing change occurs). He also lacks the mental aptitude to construct a simple mathematical equation. Its possible he may think 2+2=22. There seems to be a deliberate attempt to confuse and mire evolution with some vague opinion of the origin of the universe so one might conclude it is the rant of a opinionest although there is not much difference in the lack of knowledge of one less than four and a opinionest. One might also think that from the tone of the article the author might have a intense hate of evolution or change, will deny under any circumstances that change occurs and is one of the few that still thinks himself a clone.
That one might properly review the above a definition of opinionest is needed. A opinionest seeks agenda or imposition of opinion (irrational or illogical thought and useless babble) by lack of knowledge, untruths, redefinition, accusation, name calling, any other vile act and in the end when frustrated violence. The agenda of a opinionest is thought to be the most vile and in opposition of all that is ethical.
To further clarify one needs the definition of evolution that is most accepted. It is simply: "In the life sciences, evolution is a change in the traits of living organisms over generations, including the emergence of new species. Since the development of modern genetics in the 1940s, evolution has been defined more specifically as a change in the frequency of alleles in a population from one generation to the next. In other fields evolution is used more generally to refer to any process of change over time". On a further note I would include that Darwin did not use the term evolution but the terms change and difference. Evolution is a later term that includes both. Darwin simply proposed that change and difference occurs and is ongoing whether by reproduction or nature and included evidence of change and differences.
One might propose a simple observation for the author that is neither too complex or complicated for his understanding if such a thing is possible. First the observation that of 6.7 billion people on earth no two have been observed to be exactly the same and all have some difference or change by reproduction or nature. However there are still a few of creation that deny by opinion that change or difference has occurred and opine that they and all others are clones.
A second observation may be needed. One would encourage you to get the author, pictures of his ancestors and stand in front of a mirror. If he can observe any difference or change, no matter how small some evolution has occurred. If by observation the author can say that there is no difference or no change, no matter how small then no evolution has occurred and and he and his ancestors are clones. If the observation is that no evolution has occurred one would not need the terms male or female for the male would be female and female would be male. A she would be a he and a he would be a she. All such terms would mean the same thing and in the future could be eliminated and one should refer to another or others as a clone or clones.
Please thank the author for the revelations of a clone and a clone's opinion.
500
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.