Earliest hominid: Not a hominid at all?

University of Michigan News Service ^ | June 19, 2006 | Laura Bailey

[muawiyah]

I think that guy looks like a chimp.

[ahayes]

Sparring Scientists Placemarker

[keithtoo]

What kind of monkeyshine are you tryin' to pull?

Ya buncha Evol-Doers.

[Tribune7]

ping

[WKB]

Calling Carolina Guitarman and his Jungle band.

[ahayes]

This thread will probably end up entirely ruined, but I thought you might be interested in looking up the article referenced later.

[fish hawk]

Pinging you another "gap". They just keep coming don't they. I suspect that the reason this happens is because "your" scientist lied about it in the first place.

[Coyoteman]

"The big message it sends us is our ancestors never looked like a chimpanzee," Wolpoff said. "This thing is clearly saying that chimpanzees are just as different from this ancestor as we are. They are just different in a different way."

Wolpoff said the skull could be a common ancestor of humans and living chimps.

This is pretty important. The time period roughly 6-10 million years ago has few fossils because apes and the rest were all living in forests, which are very poor at creating fossils.

The correct placement of this specimen as a common ancestor of humans and living chimps is an important reinterpretation.

Wolpoff is one of the most experienced old fossil guys out there. He's been at this for years, so its good to have somebody with his experience and knowledge taking a close look at this fossil specimen.

[TheCrusader]

"The research team concluded that the cranium did not sit atop the spine but in front of it, indicating the creature walked on all fours like an ape."

These researchers will be roundly criticized by the practitioners of the religion of Darwinism for daring to speak the truth.

[annie laurie]

Ping

[Coyoteman]

Now THIS is interesting!

Read the original article. It is interesting!

These are some of the best researchers in the business, and this is important research.

If you read it, you won't easily wave it away with some inane quip, as we often see on these threads.

[Coyoteman]

Got it in anything other than PDF, mate?

I didn't write it! I'm not responsible for the format.

Don't you have Adobe Acrobat? You should be able to download a copy of Adobe Acrobat reader from Adobe.com, and then read all of those files.

This is an important paper, very carefully done. It places an old fossil, which for some reason is not very accessible, in a more believable interpretation.

[blam]

Thanks Annie.

[Coyoteman]

I know you're not responsible for the format, but I know you're resourceful, so I wondered if you had it via HTML. It would seem apparent that you do not trust the University's website, or that it was improperly summarized? Or is this a posturing attempt; "read the actual complicated paper, tiny creationist, like I have. Then one day you may be as smart as me."

I have Adobe Acrobat, but my computer freezes up sometimes when trying to open PDFs. I think it's succumbing to entropy. *Wink*

My comments were directed to the thoroughness of this paper and the scientific standing of its primary author. He has taken a fossil that was somewhat ambiguous and figured out where it more likely lies in the scheme of things. That is a valuable thing to do. I was not attempting to demean you at all in this thread, as you have done nothing to deserve it (but the thread's still young!).

My point was that Walpoff seems to have straightened out a very confusing find in a very difficult time period. I find his explanation, and his evidence, credible, and I have some training in the field.

If your system is freezing up, perhaps more memory or some other slight upgrade might help? Perhaps a system upgrade would do it. (I use Macs, so I don't know a thing about most other folks' problems.)