Big.blue.nation Posted April 4, 2010 Share Posted April 4, 2010 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/evolution/7550033/Missing-link-between-man-and-apes-found.html I just read this article while looking at news on Drudgereport. Very, very intriguing article and thought I'd share it. If it's already been posted, I apologize. Full skeleton(s) for a very rare find! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shyone Posted April 4, 2010 Share Posted April 4, 2010 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/evolution/7550033/Missing-link-between-man-and-apes-found.html I just read this article while looking at news on Drudgereport. Very, very intriguing article and thought I'd share it. If it's already been posted, I apologize. Full skeleton(s) for a very rare find! The title is slightly misleading. What they found is another skeleton of a species of hominid related to humans but not in our direct ancestral past. And these days, people are really looking for the species of ancient hominid about 4-6 million years ago before the split between chimpanzees and humans (a species before Ardipithecus ramidus). It is thought that the new fossil to be unveiled this week will be identified as a new species that fits somewhere between Australopithicus and Homo habilis. Strangely, the article seems to be aware of Australopithicus but not Ardipithecus. And it turns out that, although the species discovered is close to Homo habilis, it is not in the same lineage. It is another evolutionary dead end. They must have sinned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big.blue.nation Posted April 4, 2010 Author Share Posted April 4, 2010 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/evolution/7550033/Missing-link-between-man-and-apes-found.html I just read this article while looking at news on Drudgereport. Very, very intriguing article and thought I'd share it. If it's already been posted, I apologize. Full skeleton(s) for a very rare find! The title is slightly misleading. What they found is another skeleton of a species of hominid related to humans but not in our direct ancestral past. And these days, people are really looking for the species of ancient hominid about 4-6 million years ago before the split between chimpanzees and humans (a species before Ardipithecus ramidus). It is thought that the new fossil to be unveiled this week will be identified as a new species that fits somewhere between Australopithicus and Homo habilis. Strangely, the article seems to be aware of Australopithicus but not Ardipithecus. And it turns out that, although the species discovered is close to Homo habilis, it is not in the same lineage. It is another evolutionary dead end. They must have sinned. Shyone, appreciate the clarification regarding this article that was released. The heading that the writer makes is a bold assertion no doubt; it grabbed my attention and most certainly will millions of others who will see it on DRUDGEREPORT. It implies a direct link, but there are other branches that go different ways (or may end) as you eluded too. I noticed that the scientists involved in the work are having a press release Thursday to shed some more light on this find. Yea, maybe they sinned and we're wiped out by an earlier YHWH ... way, way back in time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shyone Posted April 4, 2010 Share Posted April 4, 2010 Shyone, appreciate the clarification regarding this article that was released. The heading that the writer makes is a bold assertion no doubt; it grabbed my attention and most certainly will millions of others who will see it on DRUDGEREPORT. It implies a direct link, but there are other branches that go different ways (or may end) as you eluded too. I noticed that the scientists involved in the work are having a press release Thursday to shed some more light on this find. Yea, maybe they sinned and we're wiped out by an earlier YHWH ... way, way back in time. Actually, for the general public, it might not be a bad thing. Maybe some of those who said, "Where's the missing link? No link? No evolution!" will be confronted by others who saw this and said, "Don't you read?" Of course, YEC people don't, so they would be reduced to, "Uuuhhhhhhh..." And it is a "missing link" in a sense. The tree has branches and every spot on a branch (or even undiscovered branches like this one) reinforce that evolution has been going on and producing "endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful." My favorite slogan that ties evolution to salvation is, "Raptor Jesus went extinct for your sins." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Petrel Posted April 5, 2010 Share Posted April 5, 2010 Science journalism would greatly benefit from a strict policy of ten lashes for any journalist to use the phrase "missing link". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnK Posted April 5, 2010 Share Posted April 5, 2010 Science journalism would greatly benefit from a strict policy of ten lashes for any journalist to use the phrase "missing link". Another misnomer I find irritating is when people or media polls talk about "believing" in evolution. Evolution is not a belief system, but a science based on facts and observations. A better word would be "accept". By using such terms, the media often assists in spreading distortions and misinformation instead of clarifying issues like it is supposed to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts