Astonishing Skull Found in Africa

BBC ^ | 10 July, 2002 | Ivan Noble

[RobRoy]

Dunno. How many paleontologists are They Might Be Giants fans?

I LOVED that film. Great message...

[Pietro]

"Future finds may make the whole picture of human evolution clearer"

Or not.

[AndrewC]

Thanks, missed your post before I found the question and answer link concerning the find.

[SteveH]

Can a tooth be used to get DNA sample for analysis in a fossil this old?

[AndrewC]

Budda-tchang!

[RobRoy]

I've never seen so many people so desperately rejecting even the idea of a pre-human species.

You're joking, right? Since God made man last, all species are "pre-human." You're creating a straw man.

[AndrewC]

Can a tooth be used to get DNA sample for analysis in a fossil this old?

No. But that would stop someone from finding some DNA and determining that the fossil was closely related to a ham sandwich.

[mewzilla]

Well, how about Cro Magnons and Neandertals? :) (Though I guess those are really sub-species).

[AndrewC]

Super brain fart. Forgot the not.

[RobRoy]

Really? What does the picture look like? And where does this skull belong in the picture?

Paleontologists are still on the hunt for the remaining bits of the box. Once they find it, they will be able to prove their theory that man descended from the Babelfish, thereby proving there is no God!

Film at eleven...

[ReadMyMind]

You didn't get that straight. They a re saying it comes from a time AFTER pre-humans and pre-chimps had diverged. Just not all that long AFTER.

[balrog666]

Since God made man last, all species are "pre-human.

Heretic! How do you know God is done creating?

[Condorman]

How many paleontologists are They Might Be Giants fans?

I LOVED that film. Great message...

I was talking about the band T.M.B.G. Gumlegs mentioned Particles; I thought of Particle Man. I've never seen the film...

[DaveyB]

You have some evidence that the theory of radioactive decay is wrong?

Not the whole theory, just the conclusions based on faulty assumptions. Take Mt Ngauruhoe in NEW ZEALAND where Rock known to formed from lava flows in 1949 were dated to be 300,000 years old. In Hawaii rocks from a recent lava flow was tested by various radiometric methods all with vastly different results. Even more startling was that one end of a particular rocks was a million years older than the other end of the rock according to one of the radiometric dating methods used. There have even been samples that aren't created yet according to the assumptions of the tests.

A better interpretation of the lab results might be that the ratios of parent to daughter reflect processes not age exclusively. The amount of the parent and daughter element present at formation is not known, the processes that might have influenced ratios are not known (i.e. leaching). The assumptions are dangerous and do not pass scientific muster. They are not verifiable, repeatable or observable. The assumptions must be taken on faith. But, when confronted with the fallacy of real tests the scientific community has refused to retract. Their religion is too important to give up based on real science. Besides they would hate for Christians to be right, again!

[Gumlegs]

Whatever his/her name -- if any -- was in life, Particle Man is perfectly descriptive now.

[RobRoy]

I understand neandertals had a larger cranial capacity than we do. Unfortunately, due to a transporter malfunction, the entire race was wiped out in a group field trip to mars.

I guess they were too smart by half.

[rustbucket]

it's much more comforting to shut your eyes, plug up your ears, and insist that the whole thing's a fraud

You nailed it. You brought to mind the three famous monkeys: "See No Evil", "Hear No Evil", and "Uncle Toumai's Skull is a Fraud".

[RobRoy]

Yer right. I should have said "last, so far."

[mykej]

"how do we know that the so-called new hominid in question isn't just clocking in at the end of the range of variation in the australopithecine genus?"

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v418/n6894/fig_tab/nature00879_F3.html

A nice little chart of "vertical (superoinferior) thickness of the supraorbital torus in extant hominoids". This sample is *very* far outside the observed range for australopithecus.

[Icthus]

Not the first time I get things backwards.... ;o)