Fossils Reveal Clues on Human Ancestor (transitional fossil alert)

New York Times ^ | 20 September 2007 | John Noble Wilford

[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.

[Alter Kaker]

Obscure quotes? From renown evolutionists like Stephen J. Gould?

Now Sparky, don't give me that.

You take one sentence, and you place it out of context, and you think that's the subject for legitimate debate?

Gould's views are well known and well argued and he certainly didn't believe in creationism or in the non-existence of transitional fossils. Having known Professor Gould slightly, and having read many of Gould's books, from Ontogeny and Phylogeny to The Structure of Evolutionary Theory, you're going to need a hell of a lot more than that to persuade me that he was on your side.

I'm honestly dumbstruck by the persistent intellectual dishonesty of your side.

[edsheppa]

Two new gaps bump.

[edsheppa]

There's not necessarily anything wrong in believing in something regardless of the facts...

Oh yes there is. It is a rejection of one of the few things that make us human, that set us apart from other living things.

[Greg F]

I’ve been down the ring species rabbit hole, probably with you. You should know by now that a ring species only shows the difficulty in nomenclature of species itself. It is hardly proof of speciation.

“The problem, then, is whether to quantify the whole ring as a single species (despite the fact that not all individuals can interbreed) or to classify each population as a distinct species (despite the fact that it can interbreed with its near neighbours). Ring species illustrate that the species concept is not as clear-cut as it is often understood to be.”

Etc. etc. . . .

[LtKerst]

idiot...leaky found ‘Lucy’s” knee 1/2 mile down river from the rest of her... the knee was the ‘transitional bone”
there was then, and is now no evidence the knee bone was part of ‘lucy”, and these bones now are the same fraud.

you may now give your ‘convoluted retort”

[VRWCer]

Yes, changes in genes occur when living things breed, we all know that. But the point is, corn is still corn, flies are still flies, nettles and primroses are still nettles and primroses. They didn’t take steps toward becoming butterflies or orchids or tomatoes, and that is the point, isn’t it?
Where’s the proof that one accidental single celled organism (and BTW, where did its life force come from? How did sterile, inorganic rocks and water become life?) miraculously appeared with the ability to make its own food and reproduce itself, and that each of those replicants was able to do the same, while also creating its own additional more specialized cells, then develop the ability to eat other organisms as food, and then decide to specialize themselves into every conceivable and inconceivable variation of plant and animal that we have today? As far as I have read, that has never been done, nor has the remotest possibility of that occurring ever been proven. THAT is the problem that I have with “evolution”, it makes absolutely no sense.
Other considerations: explain altruism? love? artistic ability? If every living thing on our planet is an accident which morphed into specialized organized systems of cells for the purpose of breeding and surviving, why would those characteristics and human (and animal, for that matter) attributes be necessary?
Just asking. I’ve been lurking and reading these threads for so long, and researching various evo and creation websites, and these are the answers which evo can never explain. Care to try? Thanks!

[LtKerst]

“Jimmah Carter” is indoniesian for “Hairless Oragutang”

[Coyoteman]

idiot...leaky found ‘Lucy’s” knee 1/2 mile down river from the rest of her... the knee was the ‘transitional bone”
there was then, and is now no evidence the knee bone was part of ‘lucy”, and these bones now are the same fraud.

That claim is based on a creationist's mistake, but it has become a standard creationist talking point even though it has been clearly shown to be a mistake. Another example of creation "science" at work, eh?

Here is a reference: Lucy's Knee Joint: A Case Study in Creationists' Willingness to Admit their Errors, by Jim Lippard.

[Alter Kaker]

idiot...leaky found ‘Lucy’s” knee 1/2 mile down river from the rest of her... the knee was the ‘transitional bone” there was then, and is now no evidence the knee bone was part of ‘lucy”, and these bones now are the same fraud.

Not true. Another creationist myth. You guys repeat the same stories to one another over and over again, but they're still not true.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/knee-joint.html

[woollyone]

No replies.

[NRPM]

Coyoteman,

Not only should fossil skulls fall easily into ape or man according to the creationists, but ALL living things should fall into clear categories (”kinds”).

Has any creationist come up with a list of all the kinds, and put all known living things into them? It should be simple.

[P8riot]

neither side is gonna convince the other they are wrong. So why do you folks even try.

[SunkenCiv]

· join list or digest · view topics · view or post blog · bookmark · post a topic ·
	Gods Graves Glyphs	Thanks Red Badger. Lots of related / similar topics, so I'm just adding to the keyword, not sending a general distribution. To all -- please ping me to other topics which are appropriate for the GGG list. GGG managers are Blam, StayAt HomeMother, and Ernest_at_the_Beach
· Google · Archaeologica · ArchaeoBlog · Archaeology magazine · Biblical Archaeology Society · · Mirabilis · Texas AM Anthropology News · Yahoo Anthro & Archaeo · · History or Science & Nature Podcasts · Excerpt, or Link only? · cgk's list of ping lists ·

[metmom]

Here’s an article that has more truth in it than some would care to admit:

New Lack of Evidence Boosts Certainty of Darwinism
http://www.scrappleface.com/?p=2688

[metmom]

Creationists keep claiming that fossils are either fully ape or fully human, but they can't agree on which are which!

Maybe that's because they arguing from religious belief, accompanied by a serious lack of training in science, eh?

Spoken like a true scientist.

*Maybe*=you don't really know after all

[Leroy S. Mort]

Not true. Another creationist myth. You guys repeat the same stories to one another over and over again, but they're still not true.

Creationists believe myths? Now there's a shocker.

[Aquinasfan]

I'll admit, it's difficult to imagine disagreement in this area, especially when homo sapiens are "one of the most poorly defined species of hominids" whose fossil record is "a confusing pattern of variation" with "numerous vaguely defined taxa, most of which are not widely accepted."1

And paleoanthropologists disagree about whether homo erectus should be folded into homo sapiens. Certainly, there is nothing in the morphology of homo erectus to differentiate it from homo sapiens. Its characteristics fall within the scope of homo sapiens morphology. Moreover, judging by the dates commonly accepted by paleoanthropologists, homo sapiens, homo erectus, and neanderthal man have all existed contemporaneously. And there is little reason to suspect that australopithecus was anything other than an ape.

Bernard Wood, an evolutionist anthropologist from George Washington University in Washington:

"When I went to medical school in 1963, human evolution looked like a ladder." he [Bernard Wood] says. The ladder stepped from monkey to man through a progression of intermediates, each slightly less ape-like than the last. Now human evolution looks like a bush. We have a menagerie of fossil hominids... How they are related to each other and which, if any of them, are human forebears is still debated.

John Whitfield, "Oldest member of human family found", Nature, 11 July 2002

Thanks for pinging me to this list, Dave. The handwaving, self-delusion, and fraud in the paleoanthropological community over the last century is breathtaking.

For anyone interested in human fossils, I highly recommend "Bones of Contention," by Marvin L. Lubenow. I'm about half way through it now.

Henry Gee, the senior editor of Nature and a leading paleoanthropologist, about the newly discovered ape fossil are very noteworthy. In his article published in The Guardian, Gee refers to the debate about the fossil and writes:

Whatever the outcome, the skull shows, once and for all, that the old idea of a 'missing link' is bunk... It should now be quite plain that the very idea of the missing link, always shaky, is now completely untenable.

[Diamond]

Not only should fossil skulls fall easily into ape or man according to the creationists, but ALL living things should fall into clear categories (”kinds”).

Has any creationist come up with a list of all the kinds, and put all known living things into them? It should be simple.

It is preposterous to suppose that classification of millions of species under any system of classification should be "easy", "simple" and "clear".

Cordially,

[metmom]

I'm glad you call it faith. Because faith, rather than fact, calls you to your beliefs. There's not necessarily anything wrong in believing in something regardless of the facts, but it is important for creationists to understand that their beliefs are faith-based, not fact-based. That should inform public debates about whether creationism best belongs in a fact-based forum (a high school science class, for instance) or rather in a faith-based forum (a church or mosque).

In case you haven't heard yet, science is not about either truth or proof. In that case, it must be taken on faith. It is important for evolutionists to understand that their beliefs are faith based because if there is no truth or proof to support it, there's nothing else on which to build their case.

Church or mosque? You are aware, aren't you, of what tends to happen to those who equate creation with islam?