Posted on 03/06/2005 1:07:29 AM PST by El Oviedo
ADDIS ABABA, Ethiopia - A team of U.S. and Ethiopian scientists has discovered the fossilized remains of what they believe is humankind's first walking ancestor, a hominid that lived in the wooded grasslands of the Horn of Africa nearly 4 million years ago.
The bones were discovered in February at a new site called Mille, in the northeastern Afar region of Ethiopia, said Bruce Latimer, director of the Cleveland Museum of Natural History in Ohio. They are estimated to be 3.8-4 million years old.
The fossils include a complete tibia from the lower part of the leg, parts of a thighbone, ribs, vertebrae, a collarbone, pelvis and a complete shoulder blade, or scapula. There also is an ankle bone which, with the tibia, proves the creature walked upright, said Latimer, co-leader of the team that discovered the fossils.
The bones are the latest in a growing collection of early human fragments that help explain the evolutionary history of man.
"Right now we can say this is the world's oldest bipedal (an animal walking on two feet) and what makes this significant is because what makes us human is walking upright," Latimer said. "This new discovery will give us a picture of how walking upright occurred."
The findings have not been reviewed by outside scientists or published in a scientific journal.
Leslie Aiello, an anthropologist and head of the Graduate School at University College in London said, however, that the new finds could be significant.
"It sounds like a significant find, ... particularly if they have a partial skeleton because it allows you to speculate on biomechanics," Aiello, who was not part of the discovery team, told The Associated Press by telephone from Britain.
(Excerpt) Read more at story.news.yahoo.com ...
Have any "2 or more scientists - test the same specimen and come out with the same "age" results?
If yes, which Scientific Journal was it published?
Could this be another "Shroud of Turin??
"Remains May Be of Oldest Walking Hominid"
If it's still walking, how old can it be?
Or it might just be Mick Jagger.
Mick Jagger is a hominid?
Maybe he's trying to find his keys in the Disneyland parking lot.
BTW, the oldest WALKEN hominid is Christopher.
Hello. I'm Christopher Walken. And welcome.. to Christopher Walken's Psychic Friends Network. If you would like to be.. my psychic friend.. call this number now. I can tell you about.. money.. success.. love.. and romance.. or.. just hang out with you. All it takes is a phone.. and an open mind. No one will know. No one. I can tell you things about yourself. Things you don't know. [ phone doesn't ring ] Why aren't you calling? You could be.. in grave danger.. and I can help you.. as your psychic friend.
But he's so cute!!!
(Hmmm..why do I ALWAYS go for psychotic looking men. And AM I the only woman on this planet who finds John Malcovich damned sexy?)
I thought Helen Thomas was the "oldest walking Hominid." Or was that Harridan? I get those two mixed up....
I was expecting Helen Thomas jokes.
Helen Thomas has a phychic hotline?
"Hmmm..why do I ALWAYS go for psychotic looking men"
Hey! I can be psychotic too, ya know.
I was expecting the first reply to be a picture of Helen Thomas!
Well take a ticket and stand in line...
...I'm expecting Jeremy Irons to call me back any minute now! *LOL*
How about some 3 billion year old spheroids? Hate for them to flare up.
"Well take a ticket and stand in line..."
So, you've cancelled the restraining order once again? :-)
Sphereoid makers no doubt.
sure seem to be flooding the news market with alot of this lately..... any surprise?
nearly 4 million years ago
Yeah right, like they really know how old.
…what they believe is…
…They are estimated to be…
…could be significant…
…it allows you to speculate…
…they believe…
Hominid nature? :)
Maybe, but what about the oldest Antonym and Synonym?
It is not peer reviewed or published yet. Until it is, science will not recognize it as significant.
If the dating is isochronic, it is probably very accurate.
As opposed to the fallacy used by creationists in their attempts to deny the evidence:
THE ACHILLES' HEAL FALLACY: This is the belief that if you poke one hole in your opponent's argument, or find one thing wrong with it, that the entire argument is invalidated. Creationists love this one, because they like finding isolated incidents where, on the surface, it looks like evolution can't explain what happened. They also like to use it to invalidate carbon dating by citing isolated incidents in which carbon dating has been shown to be wrong (without pointing out the scientific explanations for these incidents). This can also be called the fallacy of hast generalization.
EXAMPLE
"They carbon-dated a snail and it turned out to be 25,000 years old! Carbon dating is totally unreliable!"
There are plenty of explanations for why this happened. Snails tend to abdorb minerals that they slide across. The snail in question probably picked up a 25,000 year-old piece of gravel. Furthermore, this doesn't address the fact that other, different dating methods (lke isochronic dating) confirm the majority of carbon-dating estimates. You can't just take one example and run with it.
HOW TO SPOT
If a widely-accepted practice is disputed by your opponent based on one or two examples, he is probably engaging in the Achilles' Heal fallacy. This may not be the case, though. It all depends on the scenario. If your someone attacks forensic evidence results by saying that the bullet tested was not the same type as the bullet used, then this is not a fallacy. Using a different type of bullet for the purpose of verification would skew the results of the tests. This is pointing out an error in the process which would affect the outcome. The Achilles' Heal fallacy is pointing out an error in merely one of many conclusions. The person would be guilty of the Achilles' Heal fallacy if he said that, because one forensic test turned out wrong, that all other tests must be wrong, as well.
HOW TO COUNTER
Once you know, for sure, that your opponent is engaging in an Achilles' Heal attack, simply demand that he explain why the majority of incidents which give correct outcomes should be ignored. For added fun, demand that he explain why, if the procedure in question is unreliable, a good deal of correct results were yielded.
HEEL!
Bttt
How's this for you: http://profiles.yahoo.com/sandbear1960
upright ping!
Too late to ping the list. Thread's all wucked up.
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.