Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

"Key" Human Ancestor Found: Fossils Link Apes, First Humans?
National Geographic News ^ | April 8, 2010 | Ker Than

Posted on 04/11/2010 1:38:48 PM PDT by valkyry1

Identified via two-million-year-old fossils, a new human ancestor dubbed Australopithecus sediba may be the "key transitional species" between the apelike australopithecines—and the first Homo, or human, species, according to a new study.

(Excerpt) Read more at news.nationalgeographic.com ...


TOPICS: Miscellaneous
KEYWORDS: australopithecus; godsgravesglyphs; notagain; pseudoscience; sediba
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-104 next last
Yet another ape skull the evolutionists cant wait to insert as another 'factual data point' into their cladogram of illusion.
1 posted on 04/11/2010 1:38:49 PM PDT by valkyry1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: valkyry1

A year from now, another report will come out showing this is just a deformed homosapien, but won’t get any news coverage. That’s usually how these things work.


2 posted on 04/11/2010 1:42:08 PM PDT by Kleon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: valkyry1

I believe in evolution. The chimps are one step away from becoming liberals. We can turn them around.


3 posted on 04/11/2010 1:43:01 PM PDT by Klemper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: valkyry1

dubbed Australopithecusobama sediba


4 posted on 04/11/2010 1:48:53 PM PDT by Gatún(CraigIsaMangoTreeLawyer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kleon

Yes as time goes its significance will diminish as it does with all ‘the missing links’.


5 posted on 04/11/2010 1:52:37 PM PDT by valkyry1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: GatĂșn(CraigIsaMangoTreeLawyer)

Thanks for the inclusion.


6 posted on 04/11/2010 1:53:03 PM PDT by valkyry1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: valkyry1

Again?

Wait a few years and they will revamp the chain yet again.

I am so old that in my school books neanderthal man was in the depicted chain.


7 posted on 04/11/2010 1:53:13 PM PDT by NoLibZone (Now- EVERY US Tax payer is an abortion provider. We are the great satan.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Klemper

LOL!


8 posted on 04/11/2010 1:54:14 PM PDT by tbw2 (Freeper sci-fi - "Humanity's Edge" - on amazon.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: valkyry1

Why are they asking me?


9 posted on 04/11/2010 1:54:40 PM PDT by Berlin_Freeper (Figures.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NoLibZone
I am so old that in my school books neanderthal man was in the depicted chain.

I'm so old that I'm in the chain.

10 posted on 04/11/2010 1:56:27 PM PDT by Argus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Berlin_Freeper

It sounds more like they are telling you/us. No dissension allowed.


11 posted on 04/11/2010 1:56:36 PM PDT by valkyry1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: valkyry1
Australopithecus sediba had human-like face

No it did not, it looked like a giant chimp with a saggital crest.

More importantly, Physical Anthropologists care more about the hips and feet than the face.

12 posted on 04/11/2010 2:08:38 PM PDT by Mikey_1962 (Obama: The Affirmative Action President)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: valkyry1

How do they know it wasn’t another endangered species that went extinct?


13 posted on 04/11/2010 2:23:01 PM PDT by Need4Truth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: valkyry1

Fossils Link Apes, First Humans?



14 posted on 04/11/2010 2:30:50 PM PDT by Jeff Chandler (Dissent is Racism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: valkyry1

Bob, Bob is that you?


15 posted on 04/11/2010 2:34:54 PM PDT by SoConPubbie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Need4Truth
How do they know it wasn’t another endangered species that went extinct?

Doesn't fit the narrative, so we aren't going to talk about it.
16 posted on 04/11/2010 2:35:44 PM PDT by SoConPubbie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Need4Truth

The truth is they dont.


17 posted on 04/11/2010 2:48:02 PM PDT by valkyry1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: valkyry1
We just had another missing link that was found out not to be a missing link.

This dog and pony show is getting wearisome.

18 posted on 04/11/2010 2:56:06 PM PDT by Stepan12 (Palin & Bolton in 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Stepan12

I totally agree. Yet on an evolutionist website they called it a ‘spectacular find’, and to them this is hard science.


19 posted on 04/11/2010 3:02:33 PM PDT by valkyry1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: valkyry1

Australopithecus sediba in the flesh......err, I mean bone

20 posted on 04/11/2010 3:04:10 PM PDT by Popman (Balsa wood: Obama Presidential timber)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: valkyry1
Here is the story I was talking about: 'Eigth wonder' Ida not related to humans claim scientists

Maybe with all these missing links, including the humorous Piltdown man, we should look for some other explanation.

And these evolutionists ridicule Sarah Palin for her creationism (which she would not impose of the schools if President)?

21 posted on 04/11/2010 3:21:24 PM PDT by Stepan12 (Palin & Bolton in 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Stepan12; All
The Evangelists of evolution wont allow that if they can. For them its a battle of ideology, science is just a facade.

Neo-Darwinists often engage in a frustrating tautology, using the course of evolution to "prove" natural selection--and vice versa. If evolution were merely a scientific theory that was open to evaluation based on the evidence, then its evidentiary failings would be freely acknowledged and additional theories could be considered as they are warranted.

But far from being a free marketplace of ideas where scientists consider themselves at liberty to pursue the evidence where it leads, the modern scientific establishment has bound itself to a single system of interpretation, with myriad variations but one bottom line: evolution is fact, and alternatives must be rejected out of hand. Thus the tenets of evolution have become a matter of faith, the foundation of a worldview where random chance is the organizing principle and survival of the fittest is the highest law.

And like other systems of belief, it has its clerics (those invested as scientific authorities), its adherents (e.g., the education system and the media), its mission (to apply its "truth" to every sphere of human endeavor through research in the fields of biology, geology, cosmology, psychology, etc.)--and, of course, its heretics. Enter the evangelists of evolution, troubleshooters who step in to defend the evolutionary community from "the ignorant, the stupid, or insane."

22 posted on 04/11/2010 3:31:42 PM PDT by valkyry1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: valkyry1

One thing that is a possibility is that in the past, there were creatures that were apes but with different abilities or feature than current apes. Why every discovery (if it is one) has to be a “link” I have no idea.

Other than clutching at straws, of course!


23 posted on 04/11/2010 3:32:32 PM PDT by little jeremiah (Asato Ma Sad Gamaya Tamaso Ma Jyotir Gamaya)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: valkyry1; SunkenCiv
Hairy ape repeat ping.
24 posted on 04/11/2010 3:39:43 PM PDT by Little Bill (Carol Che-Porter is a MOONBAT.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: valkyry1

I am not a believer in these “scientists” or global warming. I think this one is a money grab.


25 posted on 04/11/2010 3:44:16 PM PDT by mountainlion (concerned conservative.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mountainlion

Most likely. Get some grants, write papers and make speeches, maybe a book.


26 posted on 04/11/2010 5:43:33 PM PDT by valkyry1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Popman

It’s Darth Vader!


27 posted on 04/11/2010 8:09:16 PM PDT by alnick
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts; Fichori; tpanther; Gordon Greene; Ethan Clive Osgoode; betty boop; Alamo-Girl; ...

Here we go again, ping.....


28 posted on 04/11/2010 10:48:51 PM PDT by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: valkyry1

They never will find that missing link because none exists.

Man didn’t evolve from apes or apelike creatures or whatever it is they are calling it these days.


29 posted on 04/11/2010 10:50:12 PM PDT by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: metmom
No longer ardent for Ardie, a new story of a single ape mom arrives JIT (just in time). Termed the “Australa-stay away-from-that-hole-kid-pithecus”, it's not known whether the two were really related though found together.

“But we’re sure they're related to us living millions of years later”, said Iva Grant, team leader and attorney representing the deceased in a wrongful death suit.

30 posted on 04/11/2010 11:54:16 PM PDT by count-your-change (You don't have be brilliant, not being stupid is enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: valkyry1
There are three possible explanations for how modern man got to this planet and macroevolution is not one of them. The three are these: Modern man was

1. Created here from scratch recently
2. Brought here from elsewhere in the cosmos
3. Genetically re-engineered from one of the hominids.

Here's the basic problem: In order to be descended from something via any sort of process resembling evolution, at some point, you have to be able to interbreed with the something.

Now, it was always a big mystery as to why there was never any evidence of crossbreeding between modern humans and neanderthals despite evidence of the two groups living in close proximity for long periods of time; one fairly good description of the problem was published in Discover Magazine around 96.

And then, in the late 90s, they resolved the mystery by analyzing neanderthal DNA; the result they turned up was that neanderthal dna was about halfway between ours and that of a chimpanzee and pretty much everybody involved in these studies views that as altogether eliminating the neanderthal as a plausible human ancestor. Even standard sources like PLOS Biology agree with this assessment.

Again as I noted, all other hominids were further removed from us THAN the neanderthal. In other words, if you wanted to go on thinking that we are descended from hominids, you would have to produce some new hominid closer to us both in time and morphology THAN the neanderthal and the works and remains of such a creature would be all over the map and exceedingly easy to find, had he ever existed. There is, of course, zero evidence of it.

The basic bottom line is that there is nothing on this planet which we could plausibly be descended from via any process resembling evolution.

31 posted on 04/12/2010 4:05:29 AM PDT by wendy1946
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: metmom

Amazing! How many times are they going to find, “key transitional species?”


32 posted on 04/12/2010 6:00:53 AM PDT by celmak
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: count-your-change

*snicker*


33 posted on 04/12/2010 6:14:45 AM PDT by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: wendy1946
The problem with creationists is not just that they don't really know the subject that they, in their ignorance, reject; it is also that so much that they THINK they know is just so absolutely WRONG!

There is and was no need for any crossbreeding between species for there to be descent via evolutionary processes.

The closest relative to a human in DNA is the chimpanzee, and the closest relative to a chimpanzee in DNA is the human being. Humans and chimps are closer to each other in DNA than either is to a gorilla. The endogenous retroviral markers show the evidence of our common descent.

Evolution as a model, explains these observations.

Creationism does not.

34 posted on 04/12/2010 6:16:16 AM PDT by allmendream (Income is EARNED not distributed. So how could it be re-distributed?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: celmak

As many times as the last *key transitional species* turns out to - *oopsie* - not be a transitional after all.


35 posted on 04/12/2010 6:16:47 AM PDT by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: metmom

Thanks for the ping!


36 posted on 04/12/2010 7:21:05 AM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: allmendream; wendy1946; All

This thread is not about creationists, its about the latest ‘missing link’. So if you cant defend your ideas without that as a strawmwan you dont really have an argument.

BTW talkorigns and other evolutionist websites describe their tactics for attacking creationists, so when people as yourself engage in that, its easy to recognize.


37 posted on 04/12/2010 7:49:46 AM PDT by valkyry1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: valkyry1
I pointed out that what was said was not even remotely true.

Can you defend the comment?

And yes, scientists routinely point out that Creationists don't know much about science (or much of anything, as the more educated one is the less likely they are to be a creationist), and when creationists try to talk about science they usually get even the basics horribly wrong.

The truth, it IS a tactic. And a rather effective one.

38 posted on 04/12/2010 7:53:35 AM PDT by allmendream (Income is EARNED not distributed. So how could it be re-distributed?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: allmendream; wendy1946
Maybe she did not express her words just as you would like but she had two good articles there to back up her ideas.

While you have nothing here but your claim about being ‘a relative’ and channeling Dawkins with your creationist strawman.

The evolutionists have been all over the place with their origin of man from baboons, the chimpanzee, the orang-utang, or the gorilla, and more lately some mythical pre-ape creature.

the modern scientific establishment has bound itself to a single system of interpretation, with myriad variations but one bottom line: evolution is fact, and alternatives must be rejected out of hand. Thus the tenets of evolution have become a matter of faith, the foundation of a worldview where random chance is the organizing principle and survival of the fittest is the highest law.

And like other systems of belief, it has its clerics (those invested as scientific authorities), its adherents (e.g., the education system and the media), its mission (to apply its "truth" to every sphere of human endeavor through research in the fields of biology, geology, cosmology, psychology, etc.)--and, of course, its heretics. Enter the evangelists of evolution, troubleshooters who step in to defend the evolutionary community from "the ignorant, the stupid, or insane."

39 posted on 04/12/2010 8:23:12 AM PDT by valkyry1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: valkyry1
The articled did nothing to substantiate the inane idea that some sort of inter-species cross is needed for evolutionary descent. But typical that you are unable to grasp that.

Evolutionary biology has never postulated descent of man from the orangutan or the gorilla; but has always postulated the same thing, that humans descended via common descent from other apes, and that our most recent common ancestor is shared, among living apes, with the chimpanzee.

Talk about a strawman. Why do you feel you have to invent untruths about evolutionary biology?

Perhaps you time would be better served actually LEARNING something about it rather than inventing untruths about it.

But if you wanted to learn something, instead of proudly insisting you already know, you wouldn't be a creationist.

40 posted on 04/12/2010 8:28:24 AM PDT by allmendream (Income is EARNED not distributed. So how could it be re-distributed?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: allmendream; wendy1946
No what she was saying for the descent to work at some point the descendant had to be bred from the ancestor and she was using Neanderthal man as an example (it did not happen) and that genetically he was closer than the chimp. I have no problem with the larger concept that man did not descend from Neanderthal or the chimp-like creature.

All that evolutionary biology needs is circular logic saying that it is true, everything else is interchangeable and easily replaced.

Now all the evolutionist hyperbole aside, the latest missing link is obviously another ape. It was 4’ tall, had long arms and hands and a very small brain.

For one thing, unlike human species but like other australopithecines, A. sediba had a very small brain. The fossil species also had long ape-like arms with primitive wrists that were well suited for climbing trees.

41 posted on 04/12/2010 9:38:04 AM PDT by valkyry1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: valkyry1

Not at all what the poster said. Neanderthal IS closer in DNA to humans than to a chimp, that doesn’t tell you if it was in a direct line of descent that led to humans.

Creationist “science”; invent a ludicrous requirement, point out that reality doesn’t support the ludicrous requirement - conclude that the science is faulty because it doesn’t live up to your invented criteria.

All that evolutionary or ANY science needs is a model that explains the data. Common descent of species explains the data as to why humans and chimps are closer to each other than either is to a gorilla. It also explains why we and other apes form a pattern of similarity and divergence in our ERV sequences.

Creationism as a model doesn’t explain the data. Most creationists don’t know understand or even CARE to know the data.

The latest fossil find is obviously of a species of bipedal ape.

Humans are, zoologically, a bipedal ape; the only one extant upon the Earth today.

At differnt times and places apparently there were several different species of bipedal apes.

Once again evolutionary science has a model that explains every observation. Once again creationism has nothing, does nothing, explains nothing, and doesn’t lead anyone to any further knowledge.

Just the way creationists like it!

After all, the more someone learns the less likely they are to be a creationist!


42 posted on 04/12/2010 10:06:50 AM PDT by allmendream (Income is EARNED not distributed. So how could it be re-distributed?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: allmendream
The actual truth is that this thing could be just another extinct ape, that's all. With only two examples there is no way to tell. But you have already accepted it as fitting into your preconceived model, the one that explains everything for you. That is hardly science. But plenty of other people have their doubts because it does not fit fit their preconceptions on the ancestor of Homo. One such person is this anthropologist.

For example, A. sediba's arms are too long—too apelike—and the species isn't as well adapted for upright walking as some scientists expect the direct ancestor to the first humans to be, Wood said.

Also, at 1.95 to 1.78 million years old, the A. sediba fossils simply aren't old enough to represent an ancestor to Homo, said anthropologist Brian Richmond, also of George Washington University. (Explore a prehistoric time line.)

"It's hard to argue this is the ancestor of Homo when it's occurring much later than the earliest members of the genus Homo by half a million years," Richmond said, referring to an early fossil of H. habilis that dates back to 2.3 million years ago.

 

43 posted on 04/12/2010 10:43:48 AM PDT by valkyry1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: valkyry1
The anthropologist is not doubting that it is OF the line of descent that led to humans, just if it is IN the line of descent.

Humans are, zoologically speaking, apes. The two closest related apes are humans and chimps.

It could be just another extinct BIPEDAL ape.

Evolutionary science has a model that explains where bipedal apes came from.

Creationism has nothing.

44 posted on 04/12/2010 10:52:40 AM PDT by allmendream (Income is EARNED not distributed. So how could it be re-distributed?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: metmom

LOL !!!


45 posted on 04/12/2010 11:07:28 AM PDT by celmak
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: allmendream

It’s not a science. And well of course it has a model that makes such explanations. Evolutionism is based on atheistic philosophy (or a mixture of them) and it becomes its own religion. Thats why the model works so well for them.

The evolutionist is either unaware of this or tries to keep that knowledge hidden.


46 posted on 04/12/2010 11:12:35 AM PDT by valkyry1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: valkyry1
It is science. Science creates theoretical models that explain data and helps to make predictions. The theoretical model of common descent through evolution explains the data of why we and chimps are most similar in DNA, and the pattern of our ERV’s, and where extinct bipedal apes came from. Creationism explains nothing.

Evolutionary science is not based upon any philosophy other than the scientific method. One can accept the theory and be of any religious faith. Most Christian denominations have no problem with acceptance of any scientific theory, including evolution.

Most scientists in the USA are, like myself, people of faith in God. Creationists are either unaware of this or try to keep that knowledge hidden.

It seems that creationists are aware that they cannot win the argument on its merits, so they attempt to mischaracterize the struggle as being “science” vs “god”; instead of the reality being the science helps us to discover the reality that God created.

47 posted on 04/12/2010 11:19:08 AM PDT by allmendream (Income is EARNED not distributed. So how could it be re-distributed?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: allmendream; valkyry1
Evolutionary science has a model that explains where bipedal apes came from.

And?

Maybe explaining the past. That's nice.

And of what benefit is that?

FWIW, creationists have an explanation of where man came from as well, so we're even.

48 posted on 04/12/2010 11:33:26 AM PDT by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: allmendream; betty boop; Alamo-Girl
Evolutionary science is not based upon any philosophy other than the scientific method.

Oh? The scientific method is a philosophy?

And what about naturalistic materialism? You mean science isn't based on that as well?

49 posted on 04/12/2010 11:35:34 AM PDT by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: allmendream
"The closest relative to a human in DNA is the chimpanzee,"

So what is the second closest relative?

50 posted on 04/12/2010 11:40:05 AM PDT by celmak
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-104 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson