Remarkably complete’ 3.8-million-year-old cranium of human ancestor discovered in Ethiopia

[Epic Beard Man]

That is simply not true. Once again do your homework. Yes, it is not acceptable for research work, but we are nowhere near that. For internet debates it is probably more reliable than the sources you tend to use.

Which sources that I tend to use that are unreliable? Everything I use is either a news article, research article or somewhere between.

 

[Epic Beard Man]

This is something I have posted a few times before.

1) Are you made of complex cells with internal organelles? If so, you are a eucaryote.

2) Do your cells have membranes made of lipids rather than walls made from glucosides and are they surrounded by an extracellular matrix composed of collagen and glycoproteins? Then you are an Animal.

3) During embryo development, does the blastopore (the first opening) become the anus? Then you are a Deuterostome.

4) Do you have a head, backbone, brain, red blood cells, and kidneys? Then you are a Vertebrate.

5) Are air-breathing, have hair, three ear bones, sweat glands, the ability to regulate internal temperature and specialized teeth? Then you are a Mammal.

6) Do you lack an epi-pubic bone and do females like you have a uterus which produces a placenta during pregnancy? Then you are a placental Mammal.

7) Do you have a collar bone, opposable fingers, a flat nail on fingers and toes, eye sockets made from bone, stereoscopic vision, an enlarged cerebral cortex? Then you are a Primate.

8) Do you have a narrow nose and downward pointed nostrils, broad rib cage, a fused frontal bone, convoluted cerebral hemispheres, a large brain for his size of mammal, color vision, a lack of tail, and a lack of cheek pouches? Then you are an Ape.

So, yes, if you are human, then you *are* an ape.

Homo Sapien is just fine

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

A process that works a certain way now in this nature...slow

At least since Last Thursday.

Evilution is just religious creation stories.

Juvenile.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Science has no evidence adapting/evolving started anywhere else. Pick your belief.

Except for just about all data in genetics, phylogenees, comparative anatomy, geographic distribution of species, etc etc.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

humans are not apes its a freggin different species you guys are talking about descent not what is and even still it is still a theory....kinda like God right?

Speciation is a vertical process. It results in sub-species.
Felines split in tigers and lions. Both tigers and lions are felines.

Humans are part of the great apes. Humans, chimps, bonobo's, gorilla's, oerang oetangs.
We are apes/primates. Just like we are mammals. And vertebrates. And eukaryotes.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Yes edited website which you, me, anyone can edit off top is reliable.

Try altering it.
I guarantee you that if you even succeed in getting the edit online, it won't be for long. It will very swiftly be re-edited to reflect accurate information.

I remember when gravity waves were detected. Within 24 hours, there were articles up explaining everything, with appropriate references to science papers, studies, research facilities, etc.

I can create an article about you as fact

Try it. Prove it.

If you ever been to graduate school you'd know you cannot use Wikipedia as a source for reference.

I wouldn't use it as a source if you require detailed explanation to actually accomplish something. For example, reading up on software engineering won't give you enough information to start coding. Nore will you find anything there that will help you fix a bug in your code.

But as a general source to find out about certain topics, encyclopedia style, wikipedia is very very good.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

The issue is only whether you share the belief in evolution of life. Period.

That wasn't the issue you raised. You accused me of saying you were "representing" evolution, when I never did any such thing.

I mean, you could show some humility and simply say "Sorry, my mistake". The fact that you can't even do that is kind of amusing.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Which sources that I tend to use that are unreliable? Everything I use is either a news article, research article or somewhere between.

News sources are generally going to be less reliable than Wikipedia. At least when it comes to sell established science.

Tell me, why does this fact bother you so much?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Homo Sapien is just fine

Homo sapiens (note spelling) is a specific species of apes.

 

[dad]

Except for just about all data in genetics, phylogenees, comparative anatomy, geographic distribution of species, etc etc.

None of that supports you. ONLY your beliefs imposed on data. Newsflash: Evidence can be viewed without your religion and belief system.

 

[dad]

That wasn't the issue you raised. You accused me of saying you were "representing" evolution, when I never did any such thing.

I mean, you could show some humility and simply say "Sorry, my mistake". The fact that you can't even do that is kind of amusing.

Let's clear that up, renounce the theory of evolution and all dates and origin claims from science this moment. Otherwise you do represent the beliefs you defend here. Be honest enough not to falsely accuse others of not being honest.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

None of that supports you. ONLY your beliefs imposed on data. Newsflash: Evidence can be viewed without your religion and belief system.

The irony is so extreme that I'm baffled that you aren't doing it on purpose.

 

[dad]

The irony is so extreme that I'm baffled that you aren't doing it on purpose.

Whatever 'it' is must remain inside your head until such a time as you are able to articulate it.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Let's clear that up, renounce the theory of evolution and all dates and origin claims from science this moment. Otherwise you do represent the beliefs you defend here. Be honest enough not to falsely accuse others of not being honest.

You seriously need to go back over the last few posts we've exchanged.

Really, the fact that you're still going to continue to deny your error speaks volumes. What is it that your religion says about bearing false witness?

 

[dad]

You seriously need to go back over the last few posts we've exchanged.

Really, the fact that you're still going to continue to deny your error speaks volumes. What is it that your religion says about bearing false witness?

So either you admit believing in and standing for the TOE or not. As for me, no I know it is a crock.

 

[ratiocinator]

As for me, no I know it is a crock.

False. You clearly don't know enough to make a judgement.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

So either you admit believing in and standing for the TOE or not. As for me, no I know it is a crock.

It takes a severe level of displacement and lack of humility to avoid admitting you made a simple mistake.

Not a very good Christian, are you?

 

[dad]

False. You clearly don't know enough to make a judgement.

What you know can be determined by what you post. Ha

 

[dad]

It takes a severe level of displacement and lack of humility to avoid admitting you made a simple mistake.

Not a very good Christian, are you?

Perhaps there was some misunderstanding.

Maybe post a point clearly and I'll see what I can do with it. Meanwhile, trying to paint other posters as lying lunatics for stumbling on your lack of clarity is knavish.

 

[ratiocinator]

What you know can be determined by what you post. Ha

My point exactly. Ha Ha.