08 Sep 11
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. 🙂
09 Sep 11
Originally posted by Taomanit doesn't matter how many transition fossils are found, they'll always want one more.
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. 🙂
09 Sep 11
Originally posted by VoidSpiritActually, 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.
it doesn't matter how many transition fossils are found, they'll always want one more.
09 Sep 11
Originally posted by VoidSpiritThere is no such thing as transitional fossils.
it doesn't matter how many transition fossils are found, they'll always want one more.
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.
11 Sep 11
Originally posted by shahenshahThanks, gives a lot better detail.
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
11 Sep 11
1 edit
Originally posted by DasaNice word-play.
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.
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.
11 Sep 11
Originally posted by DasaSo how do you explain all the species on Earth?
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.
12 Sep 11
1 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.
12 Sep 11
Originally posted by VoidSpiritperhaps if there was more than enough to fill a medium sized coffee table, despite
it doesn't matter how many transition fossils are found, they'll always want one more.
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?
13 Sep 11
Originally posted by robbie carrobieWell 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.
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?
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 Sep 11
Originally posted by robbie carrobieNot a chance. You would continue quoting 100 year old sources and would ignore the new finds.
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?
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?
13 Sep 11
Originally posted by robbie carrobieWho are you trying to kid here?
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?
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.
13 Sep 11
Originally posted by Proper KnobLOL, you guys are incredible, you venerate, yes that is the correct word, venerate
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.
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!