1. Melbourne, Australia
    Joined
    24 May '10
    Moves
    7680
    08 Sep '11 23:30
    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-09-09/fossils-may-rewrite-human-history/2878010
    The article shows remarkable preserved skeletal remains from about 1.9 myo.The explanation of the dating (within a "mere" 3000 year tolerance) is informative. Looking at it made me think of looking at probably the early remains of a protohuman ancestor of mine , and probably most of us. Except, of course , the non-evolutionists - they are still looking for their 600o yo. pile of dust in Palestine. 🙂
  2. Joined
    10 Jun '11
    Moves
    3829
    09 Sep '11 02:07
    Originally posted by Taoman
    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-09-09/fossils-may-rewrite-human-history/2878010
    The article shows remarkable preserved skeletal remains from about 1.9 myo.The explanation of the dating (within a "mere" 3000 year tolerance) is informative. Looking at it made me think of looking at probably the early remains of a protohuman ancestor of mine , and probably most ...[text shortened]... he non-evolutionists - they are still looking for their 600o yo. pile of dust in Palestine. 🙂
    it doesn't matter how many transition fossils are found, they'll always want one more.
  3. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    09 Sep '11 05:28
    Originally posted by VoidSpirit
    it doesn't matter how many transition fossils are found, they'll always want one more.
    Actually, for every transition fossil found, there are necessarily two more (halfway between the middle one and each of the original two end points. Every fossil was once a transition fossil. Every species is a transition species.
  4. Joined
    05 Feb '11
    Moves
    2158
    09 Sep '11 08:46
    More details on this find.... see the below link

    http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2011/09/110908-apes-humans-evolution-australopithecus-sediba-lee-berger-science/?source=link_tw20110908news-ancestor
  5. Standard memberDasa
    Dasa
    Account suspended
    Joined
    20 May '10
    Moves
    8042
    09 Sep '11 10:13
    Originally posted by VoidSpirit
    it doesn't matter how many transition fossils are found, they'll always want one more.
    There is no such thing as transitional fossils.

    You either have specimen A. or specimen B. or specimen C ............but never specimen A becoming specimen B. or C.

    What the confused science person is doing is.........that they are finding specimen B, and think foolishly that it is specimen A turning into specimen C. but it is just specimen B. and has always been specimen B because it is a specific species in its own right.
  6. Melbourne, Australia
    Joined
    24 May '10
    Moves
    7680
    11 Sep '11 10:12
    Originally posted by shahenshah
    More details on this find.... see the below link

    http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2011/09/110908-apes-humans-evolution-australopithecus-sediba-lee-berger-science/?source=link_tw20110908news-ancestor
    Thanks, gives a lot better detail.
  7. Melbourne, Australia
    Joined
    24 May '10
    Moves
    7680
    11 Sep '11 10:15
    Yes, right back to non-vertebrates, and if they find them. Its the finding that fascinates me, the fact of significant preservation after so much time. Its our story.
  8. Melbourne, Australia
    Joined
    24 May '10
    Moves
    7680
    11 Sep '11 10:201 edit
    Originally posted by Dasa
    There is no such thing as transitional fossils.

    You either have specimen A. or specimen B. or specimen C ............but never specimen A becoming specimen B. or C.

    What the confused science person is doing is.........that they are finding specimen B, and think foolishly that it is specimen A turning into specimen C. but it is just specimen B. and has always been specimen B because it is a specific species in its own right.
    Nice word-play.
    Not convinced the "science person" is the one confused.
    They may make errors of interpretation, but to deny the concept of transition in evolution is rationally untenable.
  9. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    52619
    11 Sep '11 19:44
    Originally posted by Dasa
    There is no such thing as transitional fossils.

    You either have specimen A. or specimen B. or specimen C ............but never specimen A becoming specimen B. or C.

    What the confused science person is doing is.........that they are finding specimen B, and think foolishly that it is specimen A turning into specimen C. but it is just specimen B. and has always been specimen B because it is a specific species in its own right.
    So how do you explain all the species on Earth?
  10. Joined
    27 Apr '07
    Moves
    79658
    12 Sep '11 22:231 edit
    The process of speciation is really quite vexing.

    Picture your mother. Picture her mother (your grandmother). Picture her mother (your great grandmother). Clearly all the same species.

    Do this for 10,000,000 generations, and what you have will probably not look at all like your mother, but will probably look like a mamal and possibly even a primate.

    Say the creature that is your grandmother 10,000,000 times removed had two daughters. One daughter gives rise to one line, which ends with you. The other daughter gives rise to another line, which ends in chimpanzees.

    Does the common ancestor (your grandmother ten million times removed) have to look like something half way between a human and a chimp? Absolutely not. There is no transitional fossil between the two becuse the one did not give rise to the other.

    Its a common misconception.
  11. Account suspended
    Joined
    26 Aug '07
    Moves
    38239
    12 Sep '11 23:59
    Originally posted by VoidSpirit
    it doesn't matter how many transition fossils are found, they'll always want one more.
    perhaps if there was more than enough to fill a medium sized coffee table, despite
    there being one hundred million extant fossils, people might be a little less sceptical.
    Perhaps if whole skeletal structures hadnt been made from nothing more than a lower
    jaw bone and two teeth (ramapithecus), persons would be less sceptical. who can say?
  12. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    52619
    13 Sep '11 02:33
    Originally posted by robbie carrobie
    perhaps if there was more than enough to fill a medium sized coffee table, despite
    there being one hundred million extant fossils, people might be a little less sceptical.
    Perhaps if whole skeletal structures hadnt been made from nothing more than a lower
    jaw bone and two teeth (ramapithecus), persons would be less sceptical. who can say?
    Well I think I am safe in saying it would not matter if we had 30 tons of full skeletons, the creationist set would not be satisfied.

    Probably not even if we had a time machine and could go back year by year 10 million years ago making a movie of every primate and proto human to have lived, they would deny, deny, deny.
  13. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    13 Sep '11 06:56
    Originally posted by robbie carrobie
    perhaps if there was more than enough to fill a medium sized coffee table, despite
    there being one hundred million extant fossils, people might be a little less sceptical.
    Not a chance. You would continue quoting 100 year old sources and would ignore the new finds.

    Perhaps if whole skeletal structures hadnt been made from nothing more than a lower jaw bone and two teeth (ramapithecus), persons would be less sceptical. who can say?
    Please point me to a reference to this whole skeletal structure.
    And by your use of the word 'hadn't' are you suggesting the past much be changed before you will accept any form of evidence?
  14. SubscriberProper Knob
    Cornovii
    North of the Tamar
    Joined
    02 Feb '07
    Moves
    51560
    13 Sep '11 08:13
    Originally posted by robbie carrobie
    perhaps if there was more than enough to fill a medium sized coffee table, despite
    there being one hundred million extant fossils, people might be a little less sceptical.
    Perhaps if whole skeletal structures hadnt been made from nothing more than a lower
    jaw bone and two teeth (ramapithecus), persons would be less sceptical. who can say?
    Who are you trying to kid here?

    There's plenty of evidence out there, but you've admitted to being 'closed minded' on this topic and have no desire to look at such evidence. I've even offered to send you literature which you have refused. To try and make out that more evidence would make you less sceptical is frankly absurd based on the conversations we have had in the past. Or have you had a change of mind? I still have those books here for you Rob, a PM and i they can be whipped in the post today.
  15. Account suspended
    Joined
    26 Aug '07
    Moves
    38239
    13 Sep '11 08:28
    Originally posted by Proper Knob
    Who are you trying to kid here?

    There's plenty of evidence out there, but you've admitted to being 'closed minded' on this topic and have no desire to look at such evidence. I've even offered to send you literature which you have refused. To try and make out that more evidence would make you less sceptical is frankly absurd based on the conversations ...[text shortened]... still have those books here for you Rob, a PM and i they can be whipped in the post today.
    LOL, you guys are incredible, you venerate, yes that is the correct word, venerate
    these fossils like some devotee from a medieval church holding up a piece of St Peters
    finger nail and proclaiming its power. All hail the squillion year old fossil! bend to its
    power you infidel creationist scum, or suffer destruction!
Back to Top