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. 🙂
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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?
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.
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!
Significant find on Human evolution
08 Sep '11 23:30
Back to Top