bolianbob Posted October 1, 2009 Share Posted October 1, 2009 http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/10/091001-oldest-human-skeleton-ardi-missing-link-chimps-ardipithecus-ramidus.html This is really really kewl. More light is shed on our ancient past. Can't wait for the fundies to start screaming about this one too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shyone Posted October 1, 2009 Share Posted October 1, 2009 http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/10/091001-oldest-human-skeleton-ardi-missing-link-chimps-ardipithecus-ramidus.html This is really really kewl. More light is shed on our ancient past. Can't wait for the fundies to start screaming about this one too. I read the article earlier, and it is absolutely fascinating. This is as close as we've come to the species just before the split between humans and apes/chimps. For the creationist, it means 2 more gaps. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mriana Posted October 1, 2009 Share Posted October 1, 2009 Before Lucy came Ardi, new earliest hominid found WASHINGTON – The story of humankind is reaching back another million years as scientists learn more about "Ardi," a hominid who lived 4.4 million years ago in what is now Ethiopia. The 110-pound, 4-foot female roamed forests a million years before the famous Lucy, long studied as the earliest skeleton of a human ancestor. This older skeleton reverses the common wisdom of human evolution, said anthropologist C. Owen Lovejoy of Kent State University. Rather than humans evolving from an ancient chimp-like creature, the new find provides evidence that chimps and humans evolved from some long-ago common ancestor — but each evolved and changed separately along the way. See site to read whole article. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mriana Posted October 1, 2009 Share Posted October 1, 2009 Whoops! I wonder if yours and mine can be merged. I just realized your thread and mine are exactly the same thing. Different sources, but still the same story. Sorry about that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted October 2, 2009 Share Posted October 2, 2009 I merged them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bolianbob Posted October 2, 2009 Author Share Posted October 2, 2009 Whoops! I wonder if yours and mine can be merged. I just realized your thread and mine are exactly the same thing. Different sources, but still the same story. Sorry about that. lol, it's ok Mriana. We both got excited about the discovery. The more the merrier! As to regards to the fundies, I've already come across one on my facebook account. Apparently this new skeleton is just partial, made up of a random tooth and leg bone. Apparently this dude used to be a hard core evolutionist and has found the light of the creation miracle!!! I like this line thought, "...there is no proof in evolution. Science also disproves evolution while supporting creation...." :S I then asked him is he thinks the banana is a creationists best weapon against evolution...I'm sorta really looking forward to his response. lol. Praise Jebus! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mriana Posted October 2, 2009 Share Posted October 2, 2009 I merged them. Thanks HanSolo. Whoops! I wonder if yours and mine can be merged. I just realized your thread and mine are exactly the same thing. Different sources, but still the same story. Sorry about that. lol, it's ok Mriana. We both got excited about the discovery. The more the merrier! As to regards to the fundies, I've already come across one on my facebook account. Apparently this new skeleton is just partial, made up of a random tooth and leg bone. Apparently this dude used to be a hard core evolutionist and has found the light of the creation miracle!!! I like this line thought, "...there is no proof in evolution. Science also disproves evolution while supporting creation...." :S I then asked him is he thinks the banana is a creationists best weapon against evolution...I'm sorta really looking forward to his response. lol. Praise Jebus! I know. It was a cool find, IMO. Of course that dude who tried to discredit it doesn't know or comprehend how scientists date bones. Mmmmm.... Bananas. Good stuff for us apes. If it's a weapon, it is a mighty poor weapon, because it makes a good snack or even a dessert. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oddbird1963 Posted October 2, 2009 Share Posted October 2, 2009 Thanks for posting the discoveries Mriana and bolianbod! It's a great article - fascinating! Though it does sound like scientists have to hash out exactly what the discovery means and where the species actually fits in. I'll read up on it some more to see if I'm missing something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shyone Posted October 2, 2009 Share Posted October 2, 2009 Apparently this new skeleton is just partial, made up of a random tooth and leg bone. Apparently this dude used to be a hard core evolutionist and has found the light of the creation miracle!!! I like this line thought, "...there is no proof in evolution. Science also disproves evolution while supporting creation...." :S I then asked him is he thinks the banana is a creationists best weapon against evolution...I'm sorta really looking forward to his response. lol. Praise Jebus! Did you mention that the skeleton is quite a bit more extensive than a tooth and leg bone? IIRC, everything one would want is there to describe our ancestor in some detail. OTOH, he evidently didn't bother to read the article, doesn't know anything, and can't read with his eyes covered and can't type the URL with both fingers in his ears. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest marabod Posted October 2, 2009 Share Posted October 2, 2009 I wonder what made a cemetery of these hominids - volcanic eruption? They say they are in some sort of intermediate layer, all 36 of them. The whole clan killed? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bolianbob Posted October 2, 2009 Author Share Posted October 2, 2009 Apparently this new skeleton is just partial, made up of a random tooth and leg bone. Apparently this dude used to be a hard core evolutionist and has found the light of the creation miracle!!! I like this line thought, "...there is no proof in evolution. Science also disproves evolution while supporting creation...." :S I then asked him is he thinks the banana is a creationists best weapon against evolution...I'm sorta really looking forward to his response. lol. Praise Jebus! Did you mention that the skeleton is quite a bit more extensive than a tooth and leg bone? IIRC, everything one would want is there to describe our ancestor in some detail. OTOH, he evidently didn't bother to read the article, doesn't know anything, and can't read with his eyes covered and can't type the URL with both fingers in his ears. Good gawd, I know huh? What is with these people? Just breath, relax, read what's been put in front of you with an objective lens and go from there. But nooooo, we can't do that now can we??? I mean fuck! I am shocked I used to actually BE one of them, but I had a good excuse, I was born into it; how can someone CHOOSE to believe creationist baloney?? I wonder what made a cemetery of these hominids - volcanic eruption? They say they are in some sort of intermediate layer, all 36 of them. The whole clan killed? That's so fascinating. That we can actually, physically, see and touch something so very old. And to know that those bones were actual 'people', a species that was learning and experiencing life in their own special way; a people like us, but not like us. My gawd that blows the mind doesn't it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shyone Posted October 2, 2009 Share Posted October 2, 2009 That's so fascinating. That we can actually, physically, see and touch something so very old. And to know that those bones were actual 'people', a species that was learning and experiencing life in their own special way; a people like us, but not like us. My gawd that blows the mind doesn't it? I have this terrible vision of a "Planet of the Apes" type scenario where these particular ancestors were massacred by our other ancestors. And the leader of the killers was named Joshua. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bolianbob Posted October 2, 2009 Author Share Posted October 2, 2009 I am shocked I used to actually BE one of them, but I had a good excuse, I was born into it; how can someone CHOOSE to believe creationist baloney?? Having never believed that stuff, I can only guess that answering cognitive dissonance goes something like this: "Creation does not effect my life outside of spirituality, so why rock the boat?" "The age of earth is not a vital part of my faith or salvation, so it works either way." "All these people in my spiritual family who make me feel soooooo good believe it, so there must be something to it!" "All of the answers are on answersingenesis.com; someone who shares my basic faith has thought it out, and presented it clearly; without examining both sides, I have faith in the work of my spiritual co-believers." "It says so in the Bible. The Bible is the word of God. The earth is only a few thousand years old." "Ardi was an arthritic midget." Phanta Arthritic Midget!! That's too funny Phanta; but alas it is so true for the the fundie to utter such things. A girl I used to be interested in, who was a fundie at the time, actually believed a lot of the fossils that were 'discovered' were really frauds. Cognitive dissonance, gotta hate it. What is with us friggen humans?? Why do we do this to ourselves? I cannot tell you the freedom that I have felt, the utter strength that I have found within myself, by rejecting these bronzed myths. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mriana Posted October 2, 2009 Share Posted October 2, 2009 Having never believed that stuff, I can only guess that answering cognitive dissonance goes something like this: Phanta Or be like my aunt, laugh, and say, "I don't know where scientists get these things. It's not in the Bible." All you can do is look at them with amazement and wonder how they can be so ignorant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neon Genesis Posted October 2, 2009 Share Posted October 2, 2009 On a side note, why is it that whenever some new fascinating discovery is made about evolution, the articles will always say "OMG, Darwin was wrong about something!" as if the whole theory is dependent on Darwin being right about everything? And I thought the argument that evolution is dependant on the missing link was always just a straw man argument creationists came up with anyway? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest marabod Posted October 2, 2009 Share Posted October 2, 2009 On a side note, why is it that whenever some new fascinating discovery is made about evolution, the articles will always say "OMG, Darwin was wrong about something!" as if the whole theory is dependent on Darwin being right about everything? And I thought the argument that evolution is dependant on the missing link was always just a straw man argument creationists came up with anyway? :lol" because they automatically assign to Darwin's book much higher value than we now do - practically they treat it as an alternative to the Bible, they themselves divinate, and think the entire Atheism is based on his teaching. As soon as it was the first large scale "attack" on their Bible, addressing the very foundation of it, they associate it not with science as such but rather with Theology, and perceive Darwin just as if he was a Christian Heresiarch like Origen or Arius. Their mentality is still on the level of AD354, so when talking to a sincere believer, we must remember they think on the level of early Iron Age. As such they are sure that science is our method of destroying religions (=taking the personal powers and wealth of the priests away), and it does not occur to them that science is just a way how to make more money by creating new types of products and processes. Cavemen! Roman Pope inclusive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neon Genesis Posted October 2, 2009 Share Posted October 2, 2009 :lol" because they automatically assign to Darwin's book much higher value than we now do - practically they treat it as an alternative to the Bible, they themselves divinate, and think the entire Atheism is based on his teaching. As soon as it was the first large scale "attack" on their Bible, addressing the very foundation of it, they associate it not with science as such but rather with Theology, and perceive Darwin just as if he was a Christian Heresiarch like Origen or Arius. But I don't mean with creationists. I mean like, whenever a new discovery is made about evolution, these pro-evolution articles like the one in the opening post will almost always say "OMG, Darwin was wrong!" but you never see pro-science articles say "OMG, Newton was wrong!" whenever some new fact is discovered about gravity and it makes it sound like these pro-science articles are trying to sensationalize the story. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest marabod Posted October 2, 2009 Share Posted October 2, 2009 :lol" because they automatically assign to Darwin's book much higher value than we now do - practically they treat it as an alternative to the Bible, they themselves divinate, and think the entire Atheism is based on his teaching. As soon as it was the first large scale "attack" on their Bible, addressing the very foundation of it, they associate it not with science as such but rather with Theology, and perceive Darwin just as if he was a Christian Heresiarch like Origen or Arius. But I don't mean with creationists. I mean like, whenever a new discovery is made about evolution, these pro-evolution articles like the one in the opening post will almost always say "OMG, Darwin was wrong!" but you never see pro-science articles say "OMG, Newton was wrong!" whenever some new fact is discovered about gravity and it makes it sound like these pro-science articles are trying to sensationalize the story. I was talking about the reasons, but the newspaper articles is only "their" reaction and propaganda. Those who pay for the articles to include this phrase "Darwin was wrong" are treating Darwin as some breakaway Bishop, a Luther of a kind, who wrote an antiscriptural theological work about Evolution and established a HERESY of Atheism. They think they disprove the Heresiarch and prove he was not "enlightened" and missed many facts, and the heresy would be dispersed. I am quit serious! Main churches are exceptionally conservative and the Bishops cannot think like the modern people do. Probably they have some 19th century statistics, showing how many people walked out of religions because of Darwin's theory, so they probably hold him responsible for the entire Atheism. They sure think Atheism is just a heresy within Christianity, as the atheist practically follow the commandments (having them reflected in secular Laws), so they do not stop hoping to return them back! The Bishops cannot understand what science is for, so they periodically go back to it, selecting new important issues for criticism (say, Big bang hypothesis) or even trying to get some support (say, from Quantum Mechanics, which on THEIR level seems to say that there is no Objective Reality ). In fact the Theologians now act like those blind Indians, each touching the Elephant (science) in different areas and then describing what this Elephant looks like - a rope, a snake, a column etc. And the newspapers are written by the underpaid journalists, who do not object to receive an extra hundred for a Darwin's fault mentioning! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dagan Posted October 2, 2009 Share Posted October 2, 2009 Ardi is a lot more than just a tooth and legbone. It's a 45 per cent complete skeleton. Also, scientists have been studying it for 15 years before going public with it. This is no hoax, this is no hype. It's a real, amazing find. Overview The "Manhattan Project" of paleontology Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mriana Posted October 2, 2009 Share Posted October 2, 2009 Ardi is a lot more than just a tooth and legbone. It's a 45 per cent complete skeleton. Also, scientists have been studying it for 15 years before going public with it. This is no hoax, this is no hype. It's a real, amazing find. Overview The "Manhattan Project" of paleontology So, where did these people get the idea that Ardi is just a tooth and leg? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest marabod Posted October 3, 2009 Share Posted October 3, 2009 Ardi is a lot more than just a tooth and legbone. It's a 45 per cent complete skeleton. Also, scientists have been studying it for 15 years before going public with it. This is no hoax, this is no hype. It's a real, amazing find. Overview The "Manhattan Project" of paleontology So, where did these people get the idea that Ardi is just a tooth and leg? If we return 150 years back in history, we would see what the commoner's pov on palaeoanthropology is. This I read in Ranke's "Human races" published in 1880s. Once in some 1850s a school teacher from a small German village Neanderthal found in a local creek of the same name strange piece of heavily calcinated human jaw-bone, which he dried, made a drawing of, described as best as he could and reported to Royal London Geographic Society as the remains of a pre-historic humanoid. His letter had an effect of a nuclear blast, and he had to present the jaw itself, which was then studied for several years by the best European anthropologists, surgeons, Physiologists, Anatomists and Criminologists. There was about 20 serious theories formulated about the bone's origins, ranging from "Adam found" to "this is a jaw of a Russian Cossack, who was drunk and drown in the creek during 1812 march on Paris". The winner was a theory saying this was a pre-historic male living in the area over 45,000 years ago, and this our ancestor got the name of "Neanderthal man" by the name of the village and creek. Since then the perception exists in general public, that all what the archaeologists find is some isolated bone piece, basing on which they "reconstruct" the whole image. Perhaps the same idea was applied to Lucy and now to Ardi. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts