Did one of them look like this?:
Posted on 09/20/2007 7:51:35 AM PDT by Alter Kaker
The discovery of four fossil skeletons of early human ancestors in Georgia, the former Soviet republic, has given scientists a revealing glimpse of a species in transition, primitive in its skull and upper body but with more advanced spines and lower limbs for greater mobility.
The findings, being reported today in the journal Nature, are considered a significant step toward understanding who were some of the first ancestors to migrate out of Africa some 1.8 million years ago. They may also yield insights into the first members of the human genus, Homo.
Until now, scientists had found only the skulls of small-brain individuals at the Georgian site of Dmanisi. They said the new evidence apparently showed the anatomical capability of this extinct population for long-distance migrations.
“We still don’t know exactly what we have got here,” David O. Lordkipanidze, the excavation leader, said Monday in an interview on a visit to New York. “We’re only beginning to describe the nature of the early Dmanisi population.”
Other paleoanthropologists said the discovery could lead to breakthroughs in the critical evolutionary period in which some members of Australopithecus, the genus made famous by the Lucy skeleton, made the transition to Homo. The step may have been taken more than two million years ago.
“The Australopithecus-Homo transition has always been murky,” said Daniel E. Lieberman, a paleoanthropologist at Harvard University. “The new discoveries further highlight the transitional and variable nature of early Homo.”
The international team led by Dr. Lordkipanidze, director of the Georgian National Museum in Tbilisi, found several skulls and stone tools at Dmanisi in the 1990s. They were dated to 1.77 million years ago and resembled Homo erectus, the immediate predecessor of Homo sapiens. The fossils were tentatively assigned to the erectus species.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
Of course I'm sure creationists will have a ready retort, no matter how convoluted.
Cool1
Ping!
Y’all keep up the faith. Keep digging, and have fun.
One thing: the C/E debate hasn't shown signs of evolution.
Did one of them look like this?:
Quotes from the article:
“We still don’t know exactly what we’ve got”
“discovery could lead to breakthroughs”
“Maybe different species”
“My hunch is a single variable species”
Your comment is pretty strong given the sort of amorphous, conditional nature of the understanding of this as set out in the New York Time’s piece.
Never mind, of course, that all "missing links" between ape and man have been debunked over time in the most embarrassing ways for evolutionists.
And, of course, the fossil record shows species appearing suddenly and fully formed, matching the Creationist model and completely refuting Darwin.
Over 250 million fossils from 250,000 species have been found, yet only a handful are even compatible with evolution and not one that can't fit into a Creationist model. If Darwin was right, there should be millions of transitional fossils.
What we have here is a lie even bigger than global warming hoax.
Ok, from here on out all my posts will limit themselves to discussions of OJ Simpson's ongoing legal problems (aproximately 20 articles on FR in the last 48 hours). :-)
“Fossils Reveal Clues on Human Ancestor (transitional fossil alert)”
H-ll, I worked with some transitional fossils in academia!
(being facetious...to some degree)
I think you're just unfamiliar with the way scientists work. The import of these findings will no doubt be debated in academic journals for decades. That doesn't lessen in any way their significance.
Good find.
Yup. It's amazing how much evolutionists will take such flimsy "evidence" and then proclaim that they've discovered transitional fossils.
You’d think experience would teach people (scientists, frevolutionists, etc.) to be more reserved about hailing such finds.
_______
Dave you neglected to read the article apparently. The quotes are as reserved as you can get, to wit:
1) “We still don’t know exactly what we have got here,
2) “We’re only beginning to describe the nature of the early Dmanisi population.”
3)Other paleoanthropologists said the discovery could lead to breakthroughs
4) The step may have been taken more than two million years ago.
How reserved do they have to be to satisy you?
Do you really think that? You have little basis for your belief; similar to your assertion that this is a transitional fossil when the scientists quoted in the article indicated that they did not know what they have. Is jumping to conclusions, as you have, about other scientists work how "scientists work?"
(D. Raup "Conflicts Between Darwin and Paleontology," Bulletin Field Museum of Natural History 50 (Jan, 1979)).
"As is well known, most fossil species appear instantaneously in the fossil record." (Tom Kemp, Oxford University)
"The history of most fossil species include two features particularly inconsistent with gradualism:
1. Stasis. Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change is usually limited and directionless;
2. Sudden appearances. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and 'fully formed'."
(Gould, S.J. (1977), "Evolution's Erratic Pace", Natural History, vol. 86, May)
"In most people's minds, fossils and Evolution go hand in hand. In reality, fossils are a great embarrassment to Evolutionary theory and offer strong support for the concept of Creation. If Evolution were true, we should find literally millions of fossils that show how one kind of life slowly and gradually changed to another kind of life. But missing links are the trade secret, in a sense, of paleontology. The point is, the links are still missing. What we really find are gaps that sharpen up the boundaries between kinds. It's those gaps which provide us with the evidence of Creation of separate kinds. As a matter of fact, there are gaps between each of the major kinds of plants and animals. Transition forms are missing by the millions. What we do find are separate and complex kinds, pointing to Creation."
(Dr Gary Parker Biologist/paleontologist and former ardent Evolutionist.)
"When you look for links between major groups of animals, they simply aren't there; at least not in enough numbers to put their status beyond doubt. Either they don't exist at all, or they are so rare that endless argument goes on about whether a particular fossil is, or isn't, or might be, transitional between this group and that."
(Francis Hitching, The Neck of the Giraffe, gpg. 19`)
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.