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

[gnostic]

I don't know about that theory...I mean, "ape like" sure but actual apes?

Humans are actual apes.

Just as humans are all mammals.

You have no problem with humans being in the umbrella term “mammal”, do you?

The word “ape” is just another umbrella term that showed humans have some shared characteristics with other apes.

 

[gnostic]

I don't buy science's version at all. There is no evidence that evolution ever took place...it is assumed, not proven.

You don’t prove evidence.

You would falsify or test the available evidence.

And does anyone really care what you believe or what you don’t believe, Deeje?

You have admitted in the past, that your learning biology don’t go beyond high school, so anything you have to say about evolutionary biology is, merely your biased personal opinions. Your opinions have no values to anyone but yourself.

So it really matters very little if you “don’t buy” it, because you are not a qualified biologist.

 

[gnostic]

How do you know that?
The bible says life came out of the sea.

But the Bible also say birds “winged fowls” were created (on the fifth day) at the same time as sea life. Which mean Genesis is wrong, scientifically.

Which means birds (5th day) were created BEFORE land animals (6th day), which again, mean Genesis is wrong with this order of creation.

 

[gnostic]

Sounds familiar.
Not enough evidence.
Not enough evidence.

There is zero evidence that Moses ever existing, also no evidences that Israelites were slaves in Egypt during the late Bronze Age...and no evidences of their wandering in the wilderness and their eventual conquest and migration of Canaan.

There are also zero evidences if Jesus performing any miracle, let alone his resurrection after his death.

Can yo show evidence to any of the events that I have mentioned above?

 

[gnostic]

I disagree....science has its own gods, commandments and religion....

If that’s true, then if I was to use your silly logic, then science is better at being religion than creationism, miles better at it than Jehovah’s Witnesses.

 

[SA Huguenot]

Absolutely false as we well know that different characteristics that differentiate the two even back then.

Even when Leaky first saw the jawbone he knew he had likely found an early human, and many other subsequent finds have confirmed that. His use of the terminology "Dawn Ape" [i.e. "Australopithecus"] was in reference to a new "ape" as our ancestors evolved out of earlier form(s) of them.

From Wiki:
Australopithecus species played a significant part in human evolution, the genus Homo being derived from Australopithecus at some time after three million years ago. In addition, they were the first hominids to possess certain genes, known as the duplicated SRGAP2, which increased the length and ability of neurons in the brain. One of the australopith species evolved into the genus Homo in Africa around two million years ago (e.g. Homo habilis), and eventually modern humans, H. sapiens sapiens... -- Australopithecus - Wikipedia

OK, so we take some skull, and take another skull, then we see if there is any signs of morphology.
Then we take another one, and seek the same.
Then we palce these skuls in a line and say, look they morfed from the one to the other.
Then we go and find some more and seek some more "Morfs".
then we build one huge picture of how the one skull changed into the other, and we build one huge long chain link to the human skull.

And we tell each other how these skulls was definately the child of the other.
If you call this science, I call myself the pope.

 

[metis]

When one's denomination is all too willing to ignore what is in reality very clear scientifically if one actually studies the facts, then in how many other areas are they going to lie and/or distort reality? Anthropologists well know the difference between an ape and a human, but also the similarities.

IOW, religious beliefs are supposed to be enlightening, not serve as a set of blinders. I came from one of those latter denominations, so I well know how one can be taught to ignore what should be obvious, namely that all life forms appear to evolve over time, and humans are life forms. In my introductory Anthropology course, I spent six weeks on human evolution, and I had to shorten up what we know in order to fit it all in as the amount of evidence is massive.

 

[nPeace]

OK, so we take some skull, and take another skull, then we see if there is any signs of morphology.
Then we take another one, and seek the same.
Then we palce these skuls in a line and say, look they morfed from the one to the other.
Then we go and find some more and seek some more "Morfs".
then we build one huge picture of how the one skull changed into the other, and we build one huge long chain link to the human skull.

And we tell each other how these skulls was definately the child of the other.
If you call this science, I call myself the pope.

Don't forget.
They don't always find skulls.
Sometimes it's just parts of the teeth, the top of the skull, a jawbone, a leg bone, with perhaps one or two other pieces...
They can tell you a lot from just those bits - even the color of the ??skin??, and how much ??hair?? they had.

 

[SA Huguenot]

Don't forget.
They don't always find skulls.
Sometimes it's just parts of the teeth, the top of the skull, a jawbone, a leg bone, with perhaps one or two other pieces...
They can tell you a lot from just those bits - even the color of the ??skin??, and how much ??hair?? they had.

yes, so true indeed.
On Lucy they even knew her footprints was modern human, without a single foot bone.
These scientists are incredibly clever.

 

[Subduction Zone]

yes, so true indeed.
On Lucy they even knew her footprints was modern human, without a single foot bone.
These scientists are incredibly clever.

No, just smarter than your average creationist, though that is not saying much. Since Lucy did walk upright, and they could tell that by her hips and knees, and since she was an ancestor of ours, her foot could not be terribly different from ours. They made a reasonable deduction and that was confirmed by later fossil finds. I hope you are aware that Lucy was far from the only Australopithicus afarensis found. She was not even the first.

And her footprints are very similar to, but not the same, as modern humans.

 

[nPeace]

yes, so true indeed.
On Lucy they even knew her footprints was modern human, without a single foot bone.
These scientists are incredibly clever.

Maybe they found a DNA print, linking back to Lucy. DNA don't lie, you know.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Don't forget.
They don't always find skulls.
Sometimes it's just parts of the teeth, the top of the skull, a jawbone, a leg bone, with perhaps one or two other pieces...
They can tell you a lot from just those bits - even the color of the ??skin??, and how much ??hair?? they had.

You do realize that they use the exact same techniques forensic facial reconstruction experts use to accurately identify the remains of skeletons, right?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

OK, so we take some skull, and take another skull, then we see if there is any signs of morphology.
Then we take another one, and seek the same.
Then we palce these skuls in a line and say, look they morfed from the one to the other.
Then we go and find some more and seek some more "Morfs".
then we build one huge picture of how the one skull changed into the other, and we build one huge long chain link to the human skull.

And we tell each other how these skulls was definately the child of the other.
If you call this science, I call myself the pope.

If you genuinely believe this is all they do, then your understanding of the subject is significantly lacking. Of course evolution seems ridiculous to someone who thinks it works like you do.

To people who actually know a bit about the subject, it's not.

Hence why practically no scientists on the planet agree with you, and why evolution is and will continue to be the most widely evidenced and supported theory in modern biology. You can stay on your flat earth, the rest of the world will continue to turn.

 

[gnostic]

yes, so true indeed.
On Lucy they even knew her footprints was modern human, without a single foot bone.
These scientists are incredibly clever.

I hope you are aware that Lucy was far from the only Australopithicus afarensis found. She was not even the first.

And her footprints are very similar to, but not the same, as modern humans.

From what I can recall, fossils of number of Australopithecus afarensis were found in general area of Hadar, Ethiopia as that of Lucy’s remain, which they nicknamed as the First Family.

Their findings included adults and children.

I think that Huguenot is missing the points. Lucy may be missing bones of her feet, but there were enough pieces of bones of the foot found with the First Family, to figure out they were bipedal hominids.

And since Lucy was not older than other fossils, near the same timeline, and of the same species, it is not such huge leap, as Huguenot think.

The question is, why is Huguenot ignoring these other remains? He only seemed to want to focus on Lucy’s.

 

[ratiocinator]

OK, so we take some skull, and take another skull, then we see if there is any signs of morphology.
Then we take another one, and seek the same.
Then we palce these skuls in a line and say, look they morfed from the one to the other.
Then we go and find some more and seek some more "Morfs".
then we build one huge picture of how the one skull changed into the other, and we build one huge long chain link to the human skull.

And we tell each other how these skulls was definately the child of the other.
If you call this science, I call myself the pope.

I call it either a breathtaking misunderstanding based on near complete ignorance of the subject, or a deliberate and dishonest misrepresentation. Take your pick.

 

[Subduction Zone]

From what I can recall, fossils of number of Australopithecus afarensis were found in general area of Hadar, Ethiopia as that of Lucy’s remain, which they nicknamed as the First Family.

Their findings included adults and children.

I think that Huguenot is missing the points. Lucy may be missing bones of her feet, but there were enough pieces of bones of the foot found with the First Family, to figure out they were bipedal hominids.

And since Lucy was not older than other fossils, near the same timeline, and of the same species, it is not such huge leap, as Huguenot think.

The question is, why is Huguenot ignoring these other remains? He only seemed to want to focus on Lucy’s.

I would have to double check, but I do not think that at the time of Lucy's discovery that there were any foot bones found. I do remember that she was the fourth A. afarensis found. That did not take long. It was not until 2011 that a footbone was found confirming the deduced foot of Lucy:

Australopithecus afarensis - Wikipedia

And creationists often assume that only one fossil specimen has been found of any species. Another creationist recently brought up "Java Man" as if he were making a point.

 

[SA Huguenot]

Maybe they found a DNA print, linking back to Lucy. DNA don't lie, you know.

Maybee?
Please give me the link to substantiate this claim.
I never heard of DNA surviving in Lucy.
However, do you know that DR. Johanson who discovered Lucy claimed that the knee bone was the reason to claim Lucy walked upright.
The science goes like this.
1. Chimps and Gorillas have a 0 degree angle on their knee bone.
Humans 9 degrees, more angular results in "Knock knees".
Lucy had a 15 degree angle.
However, spider monkeys and lemurs have the same angle than humans.
Therefore creationists reject this as evidence that Lucy's knee bones prove she was a humanoid.

2. Johanson was asked by a Christian who was a biologist, where did they find Lucy's knee bones, knowing something not a lot of people knew, and Dr. Johanson had to admit, 200 feet deeper in the soil, and 1.5 miles away!

Do you think this paleontologist gives a damn for the truth, or is he constructing evidence to make money and to become famous?

Now, looking at the above, tell me why I should believe anything about Lucy as evidence of being a homonid in the tree of evolution?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Maybee?
Please give me the link to substantiate this claim.
I never heard of DNA surviving in Lucy.
However, do you know that DR. Johanson who discovered Lucy claimed that the knee bone was the reason to claim Lucy walked upright.
The science goes like this.
1. Chimps and Gorillas have a 0 degree angle on their knee bone.
Humans 9 degrees, more angular results in "Knock knees".
Lucy had a 15 degree angle.
However, spider monkeys and lemurs have the same angle than humans.
Therefore creationists reject this as evidence that Lucy's knee bones prove she was a humanoid.

2. Johanson was asked by a Christian who was a biologist, where did they find Lucy's knee bones, knowing something not a lot of people knew, and Dr. Johanson had to admit, 200 feet deeper in the soil, and 1.5 miles away!

Do you think this paleontologist gives a damn for the truth, or is he constructing evidence to make money and to become famous?

Now, looking at the above, tell me why I should believe anything about Lucy as evidence of being a homonid in the tree of evolution?

You have to look at all of the evidence. It was not just the knee. The hips tell an even stronger story of how she walked upright. The hips of those others cannot be bipedal.

i can tell that you have been reading lying sources. All that they can do is to fill your head with easily refuted garbage. For example, they lied to you about where Lucy's knees were found. Why do you listen to lying idiots?

This is a picture of all of the bones of Lucy, found at one site:

As you can see the knee can be reconstructed between the left femur and the right shin bones.

 

[SA Huguenot]

I call it either a breathtaking misunderstanding based on near complete ignorance of the subject, or a deliberate and dishonest misrepresentation. Take your pick.

Realy?
Well if you believe the BS you were fed about Lucy's knee bone, I can understand why you might believe in the frog turned prince fairy tale screenplay by Darwin.
lets see where Lucy's knee bone was found.
Lets see if there were any foot bones.

Come on man, a discovered extinct ape containing 40% of its bones, with a V shaped jaw (non human), a very small brain cavity (Non human), 1.5 meters tall (if we use the knee bones discovered 1.5 miles away and 200 feet deeper than Lucy's remains, without this knee bone, its height was at most 1.2 m tall), is zero evidence that humans evolved from Lucy.
Give me evidence. Not A.S.S.U.M.P.T.I.O.N.S.

 

[SA Huguenot]

You have to look at all of the evidence. It was not just the knee. The hips tell an even stronger story of how she walked upright. The hips of those others cannot be bipedal.

i can tell that you have been reading lying sources. All that they can do is to fill your head with easily refuted garbage. For example, they lied to you about where Lucy's knees were found. Why do you listen to lying idiots?

wELL, GIVE ME THE EVIDENCE ON WHERE lUCY'S KNEE BONE WAS FOUND.
dR jOHANSON SPECIFICALLY SAID, 1.5 MILES AWAY.