Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Fossils Bridge Gap in African Mammal Evolution
Reuters to My Yahoo! ^ | Wed Dec 3, 2003 | Patricia Reaney

Posted on 12/03/2003 4:53:26 PM PST by Pharmboy

LONDON (Reuters) - Fossils discovered in Ethiopia's highlands are a missing piece in the puzzle of how African mammals evolved, a team of international scientists said on Wednesday.

Little is known about what happened to mammals between 24 million to 32 million years ago, when Africa and Arabia were still joined together in a single continent.

But the remains of ancestors of modern-day elephants and other animals, unearthed by the team of U.S. and Ethiopian scientists 27 million years on, provide some answers.

"We show that some of these very primitive forms continue to live through the missing years, and then during that period as well, some new forms evolved -- these would be the ancestors of modern elephants," said Dr John Kappelman, who headed the team.

The find included several types of proboscideans, distant relatives of elephants, and fossils from the arsinoithere, a rhinoceros-like creature that had two huge bony horns on its snout and was about 7 feet high at the shoulder.

"It continues to amaze me that we don't have more from this interval of time. We are talking about an enormous continent," said Kappelman, who is based at the University of Texas at Austin.

Scientists had thought arsinoithere had disappeared much earlier but the discovery showed it managed to survive through the missing years. The fossils from the new species found in Ethiopia are the largest, and at 27 million years old, the youngest discovered so far.

"If this animal was still alive today it would be the central attraction at the zoo," Tab Rasmussen, a paleontologist at Washington University in St Louis, Missouri who worked on the project, said in a statement.

Many of the major fossil finds in Ethiopia are from the Rift Valley. But Kappelman and colleagues in the United States and at Ethiopia's National Science Foundation (news - web sites) and Addis Ababa University concentrated on a different area in the northwestern part of the country.

Using high-resolution satellite images to scour a remote area where others had not looked before, his team found the remains in sedimentary rocks about 6,600 feet above sea level.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Extended News; Miscellaneous; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: africa; archaeology; crevolist; evolution; ggg; godsgravesglyphs; history; links; mammals; multiregionalism; neandertal
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 1,101-1,105 next last
To: Central Scrutiniser
But you repeat yourself:)

And may I say in kind, being an evolutionist means "one who continuosly evolves theory under the broad label 'evolution' to fit the latest contradictory evidence." I know, I know, thats science. But just don't pretend you're on "holy ground" with your theory of the day!

51 posted on 12/03/2003 6:58:43 PM PST by Enlightiator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Central Scrutiniser
Being a Creationist is exactly like Liberals who MUST believe in Global Warming. Different political spectrum, but both theories are based upon emotions.

You will see the same arguments used. They MUST believe in it, or their world-view will collapse.

Once again, I do believe that God created life, and science is the exploration of how it was done. I have never understood the reasons for this debate.

52 posted on 12/03/2003 7:01:04 PM PST by Hunble
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Hunble
The primitive (Oh, no! I used the word "primitive!") earth never had any NH3, CH3, or H2. Instead, NASA (in the 1980s) found that it was composed of H2O, CO2, and N2. And as one scientist put it, "you absolutely cannot get the same experimental results with that mixture." And yet many textbooks still reference the Miller (nee Soviet) experiment--sounds like an agenda.
53 posted on 12/03/2003 7:03:54 PM PST by Leonine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Hunble
D) The perpetrator is afraid of Pascal's wager.

I know, but it is always enjoyable watching them follow the above steps

Obviously, this post was over your head.
54 posted on 12/03/2003 7:06:20 PM PST by Leonine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
Until this thread, I never knew there was so much misinformation out there.

lol, yeah, right. Ol' Henry, you've been baiting "creationists" with your "evolutionist" links over the past year(s?) with hundreds of posts, don't pretend you just stumbled in here with some insightful new "revelation." As a self professed logical scientific type, you sure do take the theory with extreme religous zealotry;)

55 posted on 12/03/2003 7:08:40 PM PST by Enlightiator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Leonine
earth never had any NH3, CH3, or H2.

What Universe do you live in?

The Universe that I live in, is almost nothing but H2 (Hydrogen) with some other atoms and molecules derived from those Hydrogen atoms due to nuclear reactions.

NH3, CH3 and H2 are the most common molecules in the Universe that I live in.

I give up, what are you talking about?

56 posted on 12/03/2003 7:10:47 PM PST by Hunble
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: cyborg
lists some more there. I absolutely do not believe my existence is pure accident and that I came from ooze.

No, you came from dust and to dust you shall return. Star Dust.

All the material in your body, heavier than Hydrogen and Helium, was created in hearts of ancient stars which novaed, later to coalesce into other star(s) which also eventually novaed, the dust of which finally formed our star, Sol and its family of planets and YOU.

This isn't some silly superstition, it is fact. You are free, of course, to ignore the obvious.

57 posted on 12/03/2003 7:12:28 PM PST by The Shootist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Enlightiator
As a self professed logical scientific type, you sure do take the theory with extreme religous zealotry;)

Yeah, I'm a tragic example of Evos Gone Wild!.

58 posted on 12/03/2003 7:12:34 PM PST by PatrickHenry (Hic amor, haec patria est.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro
"What bothers me isn't just that creationism/ID is wrong. It's wrong-headed. It's anti-knowledge, anti-thinking."


Please, Naturalists have their dogma and Theists have theirs. One will dogmatically in advance refuse to consider the possiblity of divine intervention as an answer, the other will refuse to consider that time and chance, space and energy are all that is at work in the universe. No side is any more open minded than the other. You are attempting to take the intellectual and, somehow, moral highground on pretenses.

I would like to debate the specifics of the finds, it has been a while since we have tested one another, but the paper makes claims without getting enough supporting detail to evaluate those claims.
59 posted on 12/03/2003 7:12:59 PM PST by Ahban
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Hunble
Actually, I think he means CH4. You're right, though. It's even in Halley's Comet.
60 posted on 12/03/2003 7:13:52 PM PST by VadeRetro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: Ahban
Naturalists have their dogma and Theists have theirs.

Naturalist dogma is that things should be taken straightforwardly to be what the physical evidence says they are. Against that, a certain kind of theist--I wouldn't swear how typical of theists overall this kind is--says that if God didn't leave the right kind of evidence trail, we have to lie for Him.

Out for the night.

61 posted on 12/03/2003 7:18:47 PM PST by VadeRetro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: Hunble
Boy, they're almost too numerous to mention, but I'll give it a shot. Urey and Miller used a carefully selected variety of organic gases in concentrations designed to favor the formation of soem of life's building blocks. Nor suprisingly, they got the result they wanted. However, did it replicate actual conditions on earth? No. Earth's original atmosphere (as posited by scientists, not creationists) couldn't hold heavy gases like xenon and krypton, let alone the lighter ones like methane and ammonia. Urey and Miller's experiment subjected the test gases to carefully controlled electrical stimulation to get their result. A real lightning bolt would have fried the potential result. Going farther, Urey and Miller carefully screened their experiment from real-world concentrations of ultra-violet light, which would have been as plentiful then as now. They did this because ultra-violet light breaks down ammonia faster than it can form, so in the real world the combination of ingredients used by Urey/Miller wouldn't have had a chance of working. Plus, if all these things were in on the beginning, sedimentary rocks ought to show significant amounts of organic stuff. They don't. Need more? Real life amino acids are all of one special form, called left-handed molecules. Urey/Miller's experiment produced a "racemic" mixture of amino acides, approximately equal proportions of left- and right-handed amino acids. If that had been the case from the beginning, we'd still have left- and right-handed molecules, but we don't find right-handed molecules in any life form today. All for now. I'm tired of typing. ;^)
62 posted on 12/03/2003 7:20:00 PM PST by Hootowl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Hunble
The Miller experiment is about earth's atmosphere, not the universe. To be honest, I did overstate that the primitive (It isn't academically correct to use the word primitive, now.)atmosphere hadn't any NH3, etc. There may have been traces, though NASA found none. Ammonia and methane are not at all "the most common molecules in the Universe," and surely you know that, since it contradicts your statement that "The Universe that I live in, is almost nothing but H2." The point is that informed scientists have known for a quarter of a century that the Miller experiment is flawed, and yet the agenda continues.
63 posted on 12/03/2003 7:21:39 PM PST by Leonine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro
Thanks for the correction. I did intend CH4.
64 posted on 12/03/2003 7:24:24 PM PST by Leonine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: The Shootist
Good grief, I study the spectra of stars and know all about nuclear reactions and how atoms interact.

For our Creationists friends, here is an outstanding website for Color spectra of elements undergoing electrical discharge excitation.

http://home.achilles.net/~jtalbot/data/elements/index.html

Using this knowledge, you can study objects in space by simply observing the light that they emit. Simple concept, but that is what Science is all about.

I believe that God created life and the Universe. But if I actually followed the "evidence" the the Creationists provide to demonstrate their side of the debate, I would be forced into only one conclusion:

There is no Universe or God!

That is a false argument, so I must question their intentions.

65 posted on 12/03/2003 7:26:24 PM PST by Hunble
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: shaggy eel
...yes, it did have to start somewhere...it evolved as the first "inboard" biopropulsion mechanism...but nobody cared.

The problem was...that they were hard to steer...and stop...so God fed them to the early Muttlys, and other elevated creations.

...and boy were we grateful !
66 posted on 12/03/2003 7:30:25 PM PST by PoorMuttly (DO, or DO NOT. There is no TRY - Yoda)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: Hunble
My wife says I've gotta go! HootOwl can bring you up to date academically. Go Hootie! Go Hootie...
67 posted on 12/03/2003 7:30:58 PM PST by Leonine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: Hunble; Leonine
The Miller experiment demonstrated how hydrocarbon gases, when subjected to an energy source, were able to combine and produce Amino acids. This experiment has been reproduced so many times, and under so many different conditions, it would be difficult to list all of them. So, what was the flaw in this experiment? There is nothing wrong with the Miller experiment. There is some thing wrong with the conclusion that the experiment offered a potential model for how basic organic compounds were first synthesized: 1. Most now do not believe that ancient atmosphere was a predominantly reducing environment (as required by the experiment). 2. The energy requirement for the experiment is tremendous. It is unlikely that early Earth lightning storms would have produced enough energy to generate the vast amounts of organic molecules. 3. Recently, meteorites have been found to contain amino acids. It is unlikely that these compounds were created by the method that Miller proposed.
68 posted on 12/03/2003 7:33:28 PM PST by bluejay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Leonine
The Miller experiment is about earth's atmosphere, not the universe.

False: The Miller experiment was to demonstrate that basic hydrocarbons will combine to form Amino acids. That molecular chemistry was and is a fact.

Distortions of the basic experiment are for political or religious reasons.

69 posted on 12/03/2003 7:34:09 PM PST by Hunble
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: Leonine
Have a nice evening. The wife is always the boss!

It was fun tonight.

70 posted on 12/03/2003 7:35:45 PM PST by Hunble
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: Hunble
The Miller experiment was to demonstrate abiotic genesis--Good night!
71 posted on 12/03/2003 7:36:29 PM PST by Leonine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: Pharmboy
The arsinotheres are one of the most intriguing puzzles in mammal evolution; although they apparently related to the same branch of mammals as elephants, manatees, aardvarks and hyraxes, HOW they are related to them remains a mystery. Here's a pic:
72 posted on 12/03/2003 7:45:43 PM PST by RightWingAtheist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
Thanks for the ping!
73 posted on 12/03/2003 7:46:12 PM PST by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
Evos Gone Wild!

Watch Dzhobansky and Haladane chug a six-pack-each!-on Miami Beach! Thrill as E.O. Wilson burys Lewonotin in the sand, and covers him with fire ants! And you'll be utterly AGAPE when you see the Leakey girls at Mardi Gras!

74 posted on 12/03/2003 7:49:45 PM PST by RightWingAtheist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: bluejay
I will use the planets Jupiter and Saturn as examples.

As you stated: 1. Most now do not believe that ancient atmosphere was a predominantly reducing environment (as required by the experiment).

2. The energy requirement for the experiment is tremendous. It is unlikely that early Earth lightning storms would have produced enough energy to generate the vast amounts of organic molecules.

3. Recently, meteorites have been found to contain amino acids. It is unlikely that these compounds were created by the method that Miller proposed.

Item 1:

Even I have the equipment (telescope and spectrometer) at home to study the atmospheres of Jupiter and Saturn. I can identify the major "reducing environment" currently present in the atmosphere of those planets.

Who told you that the Earth did not also have such an environment when it first formed? If not, then why not?

Item 2:

This same experiment has been conducted using the low intensity light, cold temperatures and known gasses present on the planet Mars. Once again, amino acids were produced.

Even in the icy world of Neptune, complex hydrocarbons and amino acids have been found.

Who told you that this molecular reaction of hydrocarbons requires such high energy?

Item 3: Meteorites have been found to contain amino acids. If anything, this confirms how common this chemical reaction is.

Once again, I must seriously question the motives of people who have been telling you this stuff.

75 posted on 12/03/2003 7:55:11 PM PST by Hunble
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro
I will not disagree that most ID/Christians do place parameters around a belief that goes against what can be seen.

E's have a mass of evidence and one huge "MISSING LINK". E's have their own set of parameters in the opposite direction.

Consider for a moment that each individual person was in a non-flesh body thus left no "skeletal remains" in the days of the dinosaurs. Thinking about the purpose of "man" not just in flesh but in a non-flesh body cannot be answered by flesh man.

Just because one cannot see in another dimension does not make that dimension non-existent.

Consider these questions.

Then from the storm Jehovah spake to Job,

Pray, who is it that maketh counsel dark
By words devoid of knowledge, [AND OF TRUTH]?

Gird up thy loins, now, like a man; for I
Will ask of thee, and do thou answer ME.

Where wast thou when I earth's foundations laid?
Say if thou know'st, and hast intelligence.

Who fix'd its measurements? (for thou wilt know),
Or who upon it stretched the measuring line?

On what were its foundations made to rest?
Or who its corner-stone [so truly] laid,

(When all the morning stars together sang,
And all the sons of God did shout for joy)?

Or, who fenced in with doors the [roaring] sea,
When bursting forth from [Nature's] womb it came?

What time I made the clouds its covering-robe,
And darkness deep the swaddling-band thereof;

When I decreed for it My boundary,
And set its bars and doors, and to it said,

"Thus far - no farther, Ocean, shalt thou come:
Here shalt thou stay the swelling of thy waves"?

Hast thou called Morning forth since thou was
born;
Or taught the early Dawn to know its place?

[Bid Morn] lay hold on outskirts of the earth;
[Taught Dawn] to rout the lawless from their place?

[Bid Morn] change earth as clay beneath the seal;
[Bid Dawn] enrobe the beauteous world with light?

Thus Morning robs the wicked of their prey,
And stays, arrested, the uplifted arm.

The fountains of the sea hast thou explored?
Or, has thou searched the secrets of the deep?


Job 38:1-16

I suppose "thinking" and "knowledge" could be what is called in modern times "ones own perception" of each.










76 posted on 12/03/2003 8:13:13 PM PST by Just mythoughts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro
"Naturalist dogma is that things should be taken straightforwardly to be what the physical evidence says they are."

I am sorry, that is simply not the case. Naturalist dogma is that the possiblity of Divine Intervention as a cause must be ruled out "a prior" regardless of where the evidence might lead.

Evolutionist Sir Arthur Keith said, "Evolution is unproved and unprovable. We beleive it because the only alternative is Special Creation, and that is unthinkable."

Atheist Scientist Richard Lewonten, " Materialism is absolute......we cannot allow a Divine foot in the door."

I have had evos right here on this board try to tell me that it is "unscientific" to even consider the possiblilty of Divine Intervention as a cause for anything. I suppose that means we must continue to seach for "natural causes" even if all evidence points to the contrary. THAT is wrong headed.
77 posted on 12/03/2003 8:23:22 PM PST by Ahban
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: Central Scrutiniser
I'm a member of the conspiracy to force you to post things twice.

Any good conspiracy covers its tracks completely; that's the dead giveway.
78 posted on 12/03/2003 8:25:41 PM PST by Doctor Stochastic (Vegetabilisch = chaotisch is der Charakter der Modernen. - Friedrich Schlegel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Enlightiator
Scientists change when they have tangible proof, creationists work from the same unending script, oblivious to any science or new data.
79 posted on 12/03/2003 8:26:00 PM PST by Central Scrutiniser (Which is the most universal human characteristic? Fear or Laziness?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: RightWingAtheist
I actually saw some hyrax in the wild, did some hiking in S. Africa on the bottom of Africa (or the top, depending where you are). Odd little beasts...
80 posted on 12/03/2003 8:30:16 PM PST by Central Scrutiniser (Which is the most universal human characteristic? Fear or Laziness?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: Leonine
The Miller experiment is about earth's atmosphere, not the universe.

And has essentially nothing to do w/ evolution - evolutionary biology deals with what came after. Nor is it part of current scientific thinking.

That's the thing about science, and I think it's what worries a lot people of faith - there are no hard-and-fast absolutes in science. Religious faith is the polar opposite, by necessity.

Snidely

81 posted on 12/03/2003 8:36:20 PM PST by Snidely Whiplash
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: Hunble
Who told you that the Earth did not also have such an environment when it first formed? If not, then why not?

Miller used methane, ammonia, hydrogen, and water. The current thinking is that the early atmosphere had a high carbon dioxide content.(http://www.urhome.umd.edu/newsdesk/culture/release.cfm?ArticleID=805)

This same experiment has been conducted using the low intensity light, cold temperatures and known gasses present on the planet Mars. Once again, amino acids were produced.

The argument is not about being able to produce some amount of organic compounds. It is about being able to produce enough organic compounds to be able to justify some kind of creation of life model. As far as I know, no such model can be created based on the results of Miller experiment and estimates of electrical activity in ancient atmosphere.

Once again, I must seriously question the motives of people who have been telling you this stuff. [Regarding organic compounds in meteorites.]

Huh. I don't normally question statements coming from NASA (http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2001/ast20dec_1.htm), but if you have some information that refutes this finding please let us know.
82 posted on 12/03/2003 8:45:49 PM PST by bluejay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: Just mythoughts
guess they will have wait til they meet up with old Darwin to find the answers.

Darwin is dead, and has been for over a century. No one will be "meeting up" with him.
83 posted on 12/03/2003 8:49:23 PM PST by Dimensio (The only thing you feel when you take a human life is recoil. -- Frank "Earl" Jones)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Dimensio
Darwin's flesh is dead, no one is "dead", fear not he who can destroy the flesh, but HE who can destroy the flesh and spirit. Darwin is in another dimension, you will get to sit and chat one day.
84 posted on 12/03/2003 9:15:17 PM PST by Just mythoughts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: Snidely Whiplash
That's the thing about science, and I think it's what worries a lot people of faith - there are no hard-and-fast absolutes in science. Religious faith is the polar opposite, by necessity.

There are some absolutes in science. What surprises me, though, is how quickly, otherwise reasonable, people start making preposterous claims to support their not-so-scientific ideas. Miller experiment is a great example. I just checked a recent release of a freshman bio book. It has a description of Miller experiment without mentioning that no one seriously believes that the results of this experiment offer any kind of feasible creation-of-life model. To make it even worse, the book goes on to point out that there are (unarguable, in my opinion) similarities between construction of a whale fin and a human hand. Based on this, they conclude that there is no God. Somewhere, between a fact (anatomical similarity) and a conclusion (there is no God) is a leap of logic that I simply could not penetrate.
85 posted on 12/03/2003 9:43:06 PM PST by bluejay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: Pharmboy
YEC INTREP
86 posted on 12/03/2003 9:44:44 PM PST by LiteKeeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Just mythoughts
["It continues to amaze me that we don't have more from this interval of time. We are talking about an enormous continent." said Kappelman...." ]

This should give some clues, about all those missing "links",

Yes it does, but hardly in the way that you imply. The Oligocene period was a poor time for the fossilization of any kind of creatures in Africa, not just mammals. Successful fossilization and subsequent modern fossil discovery and recovery rely on a number of climactic, ecological, and geological conditions being met, and Oligocene Africa was not a good time for fossil formation.

Nonetheless, although fossil formation from this time was poor, it still occurred when local conditions were suitable, and (as in the above article) African fossils from the Oligocene *are* still found, just at a frustratingly low rate compared to eras or regions where fossils were more readily formed. What makes this historical accident rather annoying is that this was a time of significant developments in mammalian evolution.

Much of the evolutionary picture of that era has been filled by lucky finds of significant fossils among the sparse fossil record, but mapping out the complete picture will require decades of further fossil collection as the "lucky" fossils trickle in, compared to other regions/eras where fossilization was much more common and the larger pool of fossils to discover has already resulted in a very nearly complete picture of the local biological history.

but oh well, guess they will have wait til they meet up with old Darwin to find the answers.

You have a vivid imagination.

87 posted on 12/03/2003 10:00:15 PM PST by Ichneumon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: cyborg
I suppose years later we'll hear this was fraud like a lot of other 'missing link fossils'.

A "lot" of them? If you can name more than *two* from the entire history of paleontology, I'll be impressed. Constrast that to the literally multiple *thousands* of legitimate transitional fossils which have been found.

But creationists don't like talking about *those*, do they? Instead they just try to give the false and misleading impression that "many, perhaps all" transitional fossils are in some way suspect. You know, by darkly "supposing" about whether the countless examples of fossil evidence might just "years later" be found to be fraudulant like "a lot of others" (number unspecified).

Last time I checked, two or so does count as "a lot". But then I've come to realize that creationists often have a different grasp of number and proportion from the rest of us.

88 posted on 12/03/2003 10:04:21 PM PST by Ichneumon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Ichneumon
:yawn: Find another way to insult people who don't believe in theory of evolution. Assuming that people who don't believe in a THEORY are ignorant and unscientific, is getting old.
89 posted on 12/03/2003 10:08:02 PM PST by cyborg (mutt-american)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: cyborg
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/fossils.asp lists some more there.

It lists *one* (Archaeoraptor). And before someone makes the common creationist implication that this was somehow a hoax promulgated by dishonest evolutionists, it was instead concocted by a Chinese peasant fossil gatherer who knew that "complete" fossils were worth more money when sold than partial fossils. So he joined two separate fossils as if they were two parts of a single broken slab and sold it to the next collector who came along.

Through a comedy of errors, including miscommunications and a deadline rush, National Geographic ended up touting it as a newly discovered transitional fossil in one of their issues, *before* it had been properly examined and verified. Significantly, two science journals rejected articles about the fossil specimen because there had not been time to independently verify it, and they were not willing to just take National Geographic's word for it.

Within *days* of National Geographic's issue hitting the stands, professionals raised pointed questions about the specimen, and within mere weeks it had been discredited and National Geographic admitted their error.

So far from this being an example of "sloppy or dishonest science", as creationists keep trying to hint that it is, it is instead an excellent example of how careful science is and how quickly it discovers error or dishonesty.

So what else ya got?

I absolutely do not believe my existence is pure accident and that I came from ooze.

You are welcome to believe any comforting thing you wish to embrace.

But the moment you misrepresent the reasons that the scientific community has come to certain conclusions to the contrary, expect to be called on it.

Case in point, evolution is hardly a matter of "pure accident". To call it that is to misrepresent it.

90 posted on 12/03/2003 10:21:30 PM PST by Ichneumon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Just mythoughts
Their description of connecting relatives was not set in concrete.

Would you prefer that it were? Knowledge is always less than perfect, and thus only a fool claims to have absolute certainties.

Their language always contains "outs" in case of some new discovery.

Yes, exactly. This is a *good* thing, not a bad thing as you seem to be trying to imply.

But unless some contrary evidence eventually arrives to point to some other conclusion, the wise man gives provisional acceptance to what the currently available evidence indicates.

Must have been in "science" class that bjclinton came up with "depends on the meaning of "is" is.

Wow, what a childishly inappropriate and cheap shot.

91 posted on 12/03/2003 10:26:15 PM PST by Ichneumon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Ichneumon
I am not interested in combative debate. If you have a gripe, take it someone who is interested. Why don't you write to the people on the website? I do not believe in evolution and not because I get all warm and fuzzy about God either.
92 posted on 12/03/2003 10:32:24 PM PST by cyborg (mutt-american)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: cyborg
As long as I'm not related to Bubbles the Chimp.

Then I regret to inform you that you are, as indicated by at least two dozen independent lines of evidence, including for example shared endogenous retroviruses.

In fact, not only are we related to apes in general, we are *still* apes. We're apes of the human variety (just as we are still mammals of the human variety, etc.). There is not a single identifying characteristic of the ape family which humans do not also share.

93 posted on 12/03/2003 10:34:20 PM PST by Ichneumon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Ichneumon
I respectfully disagree.
94 posted on 12/03/2003 10:40:55 PM PST by cyborg (mutt-american)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: bluejay
To make it even worse, the book goes on to point out that there are (unarguable, in my opinion) similarities between construction of a whale fin and a human hand. Based on this, they conclude that there is no God.

I'll bet you can't produce a quote from any textbook that makes this argument.

95 posted on 12/03/2003 10:45:25 PM PST by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: cyborg
I am not interested in combative debate.

Neither am I.

If you have a gripe, take it someone who is interested.

I took my correction to the person who made the error, and that was yourself.

Why don't you write to the people on the website?

Because they aren't the ones who first claimed that there were "lots" of hoaxes in paleontology, and when asked for more than just Piltdown replied that are "some more" (plural) at that webpage, when in fact there was only a single example.

I was correcting your statement that there were several more examples on that web page. There were not.

I do not believe in evolution and not because I get all warm and fuzzy about God either.

I don't much care what your reasons are either way, but you should expect to be corrected if you make incorrect or misleading statements about things.

96 posted on 12/03/2003 10:51:23 PM PST by Ichneumon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: cyborg
I respectfully disagree.

You forgot to explain with which particular point(s) and why.

97 posted on 12/03/2003 10:55:06 PM PST by Ichneumon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: cyborg
:yawn: Find another way to insult people who don't believe in theory of evolution.

Please point out the place where you believe I was insulting you. Pointing out the ways in which your post was misleading (whether intentionally or unintentionally makes no difference) does not count as insult.

Assuming that people who don't believe in a THEORY are ignorant and unscientific, is getting old.

I'm sure it would be, which is why I don't make such assumptions.

Whenever I conclude that someone is either ignorant or unscientific or both, I do so on an individual basis based on the quality of their statements and arguments.

98 posted on 12/03/2003 11:05:37 PM PST by Ichneumon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: bluejay
I just checked a recent release of a freshman bio book. ... they conclude that there is no God

Pretend I'm from Missouri - show me.

99 posted on 12/03/2003 11:35:02 PM PST by edsheppa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: cyborg
Assuming that people who don't believe in a THEORY are ignorant and unscientific, is getting old.

Actually I've found it's a pretty reliable indicator that when they reject THIS theory they usually are ignorant and unscientific.

100 posted on 12/03/2003 11:38:03 PM PST by edsheppa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 1,101-1,105 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
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

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