Posted on 04/13/2006 12:18:35 PM PDT by Senator Bedfellow
Right. It fleshes out the connection between "Lucy" and earlier transitional species, to Australopithecus anamensis and to Ardipithecus ramidus.
When they find a transitional link that results in Humans, you can act as if you are really superior enough to belittle others...
I'm not sure what you're asking for. There are lots of links connecting us with Lucy (A. afarensis). Post "Lucy" are A. africanus, A. gahri,P. aethiopicus, P. robustus,P. bosei, H. habilis, H. rudolfensis, H. ergaster, H. erectus, H. heidelbergensis, "Archaic" H. sapiens, and Neanderthals. I guess those all qualify as transitional links resulting in humans, although I concede that there's conflicting evidence of descendence for the Neanderthals and the Paranthropites.
Now please explain what your point is again. To be honest, I suspect rather strongly that you have no idea what you're talking about.
Damn those facts!!!!
No, they cannot reconstruct the entire animal from that, but there's an enormous amount you can tell about an animal from, for example, its cranium (like whether it walked on two or four feet, a rather important distinction).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nebraska_Man
It's nothing new, the Nebraska Man was once used as evidence for a transitional link.
This chart may help explain the position of this find.
Its not so much a missing link as another piece of evidence. There are a lot of pieces of evidence, and the few gaps between the different known specimens are getting smaller.
Source: http://wwwrses.anu.edu.au/environment/eePages/eeDating/HumanEvol_info.html
There isn't a missing link, there are lots of "missing" links, and they're discovered on a fairly regular basis. That's the funny thing about evolution: the more we look the more we find transitional fossils. This find fills a particular gap reasonably far back in the human origins tree, and it will be interesting to see what we can find from subsequent finds.
Are you kidding? This just creates two more missing transitional species. ;)
I'm glad the closest you can come to discrediting science is to hound upon a fraud that was uncovered by scientists (amazingly no theologian is listed among the investigators)....back in 1927. Pathetic, really.
But one is listed among the finders.
"I don't know about this one way or the other, but it seems this can't be "news" because they claim to discover the missing link every few years."
That's because everytime you find one missing link between two known genus/species/subspecies, you create two new (although smaller) gaps in the fossil record. At first you have a gap between fossils A and B. Then you find fossil C that links the two. Now you have a gap between fossils A and C, and another gap between fossils C and B. The only way not to have any more missing links between two species would be to find a fossil from every generation between the two.
placemarker
I suppose it might look that way to someone with no knowledge in the appropriate field.
Here's what you're missing: In a chain of evolutionary sequences, there are more than just one link. There's no such thing as "the" link, or "the missing" link, there are multiple stages of transition, and it's possible to find one of them in 1995, a different one in 2002, etc.
The transitional sequence from our common ancestors with the other apes to modern humans has long been fleshed out to a very good degree, contrary to what the anti-evolutionists would have you believe. But with each passing year, yet more "intermediates of intermediates" are being discovered, like this one, which refine the transitional sequence to an ever more fine-grained degree.
And then there's the overwhelming DNA evidence...
Except to the willfully ignorant (see my tagline) any "debate" over the common ancestry of man and the other apes has long been over, it has been established beyond any reasonable doubt, via huge amounts of multiple independent lines of cross-confirming evidence.
And slandering the alleged slanderer will make you a righteous man.
Put your head back in the sand.
There have been a multitude of "missing links" that have come and gone over the years....heck, let's take it back further to the elements...yes carbon is the missing link, linking all life from past to future.
The article is another one of those "grasping at straws" types...another yawner!
Excuse me? You've accused me of being
1. An atheist
2. A liberal
3. A nutjob libertarian
On what grounds? I'm not sure, but you're the only one libelling people here. I'm not attacking your faith, I'm just attacking you, for rank dishonesty and for the perpetuation of stupid strawmen (i.e. evolution = atheism).
Oh, and Lucy wasn't human.
Correct and non-controversial. Nobody suggests that Lucy was anything other than A. africanus.
Lucy was a monkey.
Thanks for playing boy, but you got that one wrong. Monkeys are Cercopithecidines (old world) or Platyrrhines (new world), and I don't know of morphological evidence that suggests that Lucy isn't Hominidae in good standing. But perhaps you could enlighten me (or not).
You can pay big bucks to go to school to learn that archeology language or you can save your money and just call here the 'short one'...
The new fossil find consists mainly of jawbone fragments, upper and lower teeth, and a thigh bone.
Not much to go on...Maybe it was a German Shepherd...
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.